ILNews

COA prevents INDOT from seeking more than $100k in damages after bridge accident

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Indiana Department of Transportation after the department had argued that it should be allowed to seek the more than $100,000 it spent to repair a state bridge damaged in an accident, an amount that was double the estimated cost.

In the case of State of Indiana ex rel. Indiana Department of Transportation v. Joshua DeHaven and FBi Buildings, Inc. 37A05-1603-CC-648, Joshua DeHaven, an employee of FBi Buildings Inc., was driving southbound on Interstate 65 in August 2011 after delivering cargo in Remington, a delivery that required him to put the crane on the back of his Freightliner in the upright position. DeHaven forgot that the crane was up until it crashed into an overpass bridge in Jasper County, damaging the bridge and breaking the crane into two pieces.

Within 24 hours of the collision, INDOT inspector George Snyder had evaluated the bridge and determined that it had sustained “typical” damage that did not compromise its structural integrity. Snyder also estimated a $64,000 cost for the bridge repairs, and INDOT sent DeHaven an invoice for $75,198.82, which was “due immediately upon receipt.”

Instead, DeHaven and FBi Buildings hired Elite Consulting Services Inc. to estimate the cost of the repairs and found that the actual cost should have been between $15,000 and $20,000. In response, INDOT lowered DeHaven’s invoice to $58,712.38. However, DeHaven and Elite still found that cost excessive and chose “to wait until the repair project went to bid in hopes that this would produce an amount more reasonably reflective of the value of the necessary costs of repair.”

In early 2013, INDOT accepted a bid for the repair project from Pioneer Associates, Inc. for $132,200.80, which was the only qualified bid that was received. The final cost of Pioneer’s work amounted to $131,421.80 with roughly $200 in administrative charges, so INDOT sent DeHaven a third invoice for $131,623.05, which he and FBi Buildings refused to pay.

INDOT filed a negligence claim against DeHaven and a vicarious liability claim against FBi Buildings in November 2013 and subsequently filed for summary judgment in May 2014. However, the Jasper Circuit Court denied the motion for summary judgment, prompting the department’s appeal.

In its appeal, INDOT argued that as a tort victim, it must be restored to the position it held before the accident and, therefore, is entitled to the actual cost of repairs.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision Tuesday, writing that the burden of proof was on DeHaven to prove that the final invoice of $131,421.80 was higher than the damages incurred, and that DeHaven had successfully done so by pointing out that Elite had estimated the cost at $20,000, Snyder had estimated it at $64,000 and that INDOT’s first two invoices were each less than the final invoice.

While the Court of Appeals noted that it agreed with INDOT that appellees must take their victim as they find it, the court also said that a victim, such as INDOT, is under a duty to mitigate damages. The court pointed to Indiana Code 8-23-9-2, which requires that the lowest responsive qualified bid for a project be no more than 15 percent above the estimated cost of the project. In this case, Pioneer’s bid was at least double Snyder’s estimated cost.

“By including language…(that) the winning bid should not be more than 15 percent about the department’s estimated cost, the legislature incorporated a safeguard against a possible excessive expenditure of taxpayer’s money,” the court wrote.

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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT