ILNews

COA: negligence claim should go to trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion Superior Court was wrong to grant summary judgment for a company in a home builder’s claims of negligence following the discovery of contaminants on lots in a subdivision, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

KB Home Indiana filed suit against Rockville TBD Corp. for damages for negligence, nuisance, and trespass after KB discovered Rockville’s plant years earlier had discharged pollutants into the land that subsequently became a subdivision.

The land used to build the subdivision was farmland owned by George and Patricia Kopetsky. They purchased land next to the predecessor of Rockville, which manufactured airplane parts. The company used chemical solvents, including trichloroethylene, which eventually leached into the ground and surrounding farmland. Use of TCE ended sometime in 1993.

The Kopetskys sold some of their land to Dura Builder to create the Cedar Park residential subdivision. Neither party did an environmental or chemical assessment of the land at that time. In 2001, George Kopetsky learned of the contamination, but didn’t tell Dura or KB, which purchased Dura in 2004, about contamination. After KB learned of the contamination in 2005, it stopped building homes on the land. It then filed its suit in 2007 against Rockville, Kopetsky, and others.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Rockville on all of KB’s claims.

In KB Home Indiana Inc. v. Rockville TBD Corp., No. 49A02-0909-CV-881, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in finding the economic loss doctrine precludes KB from pursuing its negligence claim.

Under the economic loss doctrine, a contract is the sole remedy for the failure of a product or service to perform as expected, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. If the plaintiff isn’t seeking damages involving the benefit of the bargain or other matters governed by contract, the economic loss doctrine does not bar a negligence action.

KB didn’t have a contract with Rockville to buy the property, nor did it assert any product liability or comparable claim. Koptesky’s breach of warrant that the land was free of contaminants doesn’t absolve Rockville of responsibility for its negligent conduct that may have caused the contamination, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court upheld summary judgment for Rockville on KB’s claims of nuisance and trespass. Rockville’s contamination ended in 1993 and it the sold property to a subsequent buyer. Under these circumstance, KB didn’t show that a nuisance existed or was ongoing that could be abated or enjoined. KB also failed to show a departure from the “long-established principle” that a party must possess the land at the time of the activity that causes the alleged trespass, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

The Court of Appeals remanded the cause for trial on KB’s negligence claim.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT