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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Ah ha, so the architect of the ISC Commission to advance racial preferences and gender warfare, a commission that has no place at the inn for any suffering religious discrimination, see details ..... this grand architect of that institutionalized 14th amendment violation just cannot bring himself to utter the word religious discrimination, now can he: "Shepard noted two questions rise immediately from the decision. The first is how will trial courts handle allegations of racism during jury deliberations? The second is does this exception apply only to race? Shepard believes the exception to Rule 606 could also be applied to sexual orientation and gender." Thus barks the Shepard: "Race, gender, sexual orientation". But not religion, oh no, not that. YET CONSIDER ... Of course the old dog's inability to see this post modern phenomena, but to instead myopically focus on the sexual orientation issues, again betrays one of his pet protects, see here Does such preference also reveal the mind of an anti-religious bigot? There can be no doubt that those on the front lines of the orientation battle often believe religion their enemy. That certainly could explain why the ISC kicked me in the face and down the proverbial crevice when I documented religious discrimination in its antechambers in 2009 .... years before the current turnover began that ended with a whole new court (hallelujah!) in 2017. Details on the kick to my face here Friends and countrymen, harbor no doubt about it .... anti-religious bias is strong with this old dog, it is. One can only wonder what Hoosier WW2 hero and great jurist Justice Alfred Pivarnik would have made of all of this? Take this comment home for us, Gary Welsh (RIP):

  2. my sister hit a horse that ran in the highway the horse belonged to an amish man she is now in a nurseing home for life. The family the horse belonged to has paid some but more needs to be paid she also has kids still at home...can we sue in the state f Indiana

  3. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  4. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here:

  5. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.