ILNews

Attorney fees not recoverable under adult wrongful death statute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today disagreed about an issue of first impression regarding recovery of attorney fees under the adult wrongful death statute.

In Jeffery H. McCabe, As Representative of the Estate of Jean Francis McCabe, Decedent v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance as Administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, No. 49A02-0908-CV-728, Jeffrey McCabe appealed the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance as Administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The trial court had ruled attorney fees and expenses incurred by the attorney representing the personal representative of a wrongful death estate are not recoverable damages under the state adult wrongful death statute.

The appellate court noted Indiana has three separate causes of action for the wrongful death of an individual: a general wrongful death statute, a statute pertaining to the wrongful death of children, and the adult wrongful death statute. The primary difference for the purposes of this appeal is that the GWDS and the CWDS specifically provide for reasonable attorney fees, but the AWDS does not address the matter.

Jean Francis McCabe died Oct. 1, 2003, from an methotrexate overdose negligently administered to her by medical providers at the long-term care facility where she lived. Jeffrey McCabe is her only child and a nondependent.

McCabe filed a proposed complaint in December 2003 with the Department of Insurance pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The matter was presented to a medical review panel; shortly thereafter, the care facility settled all claims with McCabe for an amount that would allow further proceedings against the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund.

As the personal representative of his mother’s estate, McCabe filed his petition to determine the amount of excess damages against the fund Sept. 23, 2008. Through discovery, McCabe clarified that in addition to seeking recovery for the loss of his mother’s love and companionship, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, he also sought repayment of costs and expenses, including attorney fees, for the administration of the wrongful death estate and prosecution of the wrongful death claim.

The fund filed a motion for partial summary judgment April 7, 2009, on the issue of recoverable damages, seeking to limit the recovery to damages specifically allowed under the AWDS.

The trial court ruled in June 2009 that attorney fees, costs, and expenses are not recoverable under AWDS. The appellate court accepted jurisdiction Oct. 14, 2009, of McCabe’s interlocutory appeal.

McCabe relied on Hillebrand v. Supervised Estate of Large, 914 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), but the appellate court noted Hillebrand is distinguishable from the instant case because it was a probate case deciding from which probate assets attorney fees incurred should be paid, and it precedes both the CWDS and the AWDS.

Also, it noted that the Indiana Supreme Court recently concluded in Butler v. Indiana Department of Insurance, 904 N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. 2009),  that the “include but not limited to” language does not expand the class of necessitated expenses.

“While we acknowledge that this inconsistency is troubling, we believe such inconsistency is the result of public policy considerations that are the prerogative of the General Assembly,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias, with whom Judge Cale Bradford concurred.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing, “In light of the Estate of Kuba (508 N.E.2d 1, 2 (Ind. 1987)), Butler, and Hillebrand, I would hold that reasonable attorney fees are recoverable damages under the AWDS.”

Judge Riley noted that unlike the majority’s opinion, hers produces a harmonious result between the GWDS, AWDS, and CWDS.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT