ILNews

2013 DTCI amicus report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Kite-Donald-SrIn 2013, the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana’s Amicus Committee participated in a number of interesting appeals. The cases DTCI became involved in this year addressed a variety of issues, including the naming of criminal assailants as nonparties in premises liability cases; naming an independent physician as a party in a case which is brought against a hospital where the suit is based upon the independent physician’s allegedly negligent acts or omissions; and the issue of whether Indiana’s General Wrongful Death Statute, Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1, allows attorney fees when there is/are no surviving spouse or dependents.

If you wish to request DTCI’s participation as amicus in your appeal, please do not hesitate to contact me. While DTCI does not become involved as amicus in each case in which its involvement is requested, the Amicus Committee carefully considers each request and values the opportunity to work with defense counsel throughout Indiana on the variety of issues which are presented on appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court cases

DTCI participated as amicus this past year in Santelli v. Rahmatullah and Super 8 Motel, 993 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2013), a very important case in which the defense bar ultimately prevailed. Santelli, which involved the “very duty doctrine” and the question of joint and several liability, pertained to the issue of whether, in a premises liability case in which the victim was murdered, the premises owner could name the criminal assailant as a nonparty. Frost Brown Todd’s Lucy Dollens, co-recipient of this year’s DTCI Defense Lawyer of the Year Award (and a valued member of the Amicus Committee), authored two briefs in this case: both the amicus brief which was filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals and the brief in support of the petition to transfer which was filed in the Indiana Supreme Court. Among other things, DTCI argued in is briefing that the Court of Appeals’ decision, were it to stand, would thrust upon defendants, who or which were the least responsible or culpable, the responsibility for far more than their share of the damages which are awarded at trial. The case was orally argued on Valentine’s Day. On Aug. 28, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down its opinion agreeing with the position taken by DTCI. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously held, among other things, that the Indiana Comparative Fault Act does not preclude the allocation of fault between negligent and intentional tortfeasors.

DTCI also chose to participate as amicus in Amburgey v. Columbus Regional Hospital, 976 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In Amburgey, the Indiana Court of Appeals had held that a plaintiff is not required to name an independent physician as a party in a case which is brought against a hospital where the suit is based upon the independent physician’s allegedly negligent acts or omissions. DTCI member R. Thomas Bodkin, a former president and diplomat of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant hospital’s petition to transfer. On March 14, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the petition to transfer which DTCI supported. While DTCI did not ultimately prevail in Amburgey, the Amicus Committee thanks attorney Bodkin for his dedication and his hard work.

Indiana Court of Appeals cases

DTCI also filed an amicus brief this year in the Indiana Court of Appeals in Frederick v. SCI Propane, a wrongful-death case in which the trial court awarded the decedent’s estate $2.5 million dollars in attorney fees (on a $3.7 million dollar settlement reached post-verdict). The decedent was survived by a spouse and minor child. On appeal, defense counsel Kent M. Frandsen (Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson) argued, among other things, that the General Wrongful Death Statute, Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1, only allows attorney fees when there is no surviving spouse or dependent. I authored DTCI’s amicus brief arguing that attorney fees are not recoverable under Indiana’s General Wrongful Death Statute because the section of the statute that is applicable where a decedent leaves a surviving spouse or dependent does not expressly mention attorney fees and attorney fees are not “of the same genre” as the recoverable damages which are specifically listed in the statute.

Thanks to committee members, brief writers and the board

The Amicus Committee appreciates and thanks the attorneys who author amicus briefs and who worked with the attorneys for the parties which DTCI as an organization supported. The committee very much appreciates the DTCI board of directors and its members’ continued support.

I personally want to thank the other members of the committee for their diligence and commitment to the committee’s work. The current members of the Amicus Committee are Michele Bryant (Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn); Lucy Dollens (Frost Brown Todd); Michael Dugan (Dugan & Voland); Daniel Glavin (O’Neill McFadden & Willett); Edward Harney (Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons); Phil Kalamaros (Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros); Peter H. Pogue (Schultz & Pogue), a long-time member of DTCI who has authored a number of amicus briefs in the past, who I am pleased to report joined the Amicus Committee this year; Crystal Rowe (Kightlinger & Gray), and Donald B. Kite Sr. (Wuertz Law Office).

Donald B. Kite Sr., of counsel with The Wuertz Law Office LLC in Indianapolis, is the chair of DTCI’s Amicus Committee. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT