ILNews

COA reverses judgment on 1 cross-claim in library appeal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library should be able to pursue a cross-claim against an engineering company for breach of professional standard of care, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The appellate court addressed three issues in its ruling in Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Thorton Tomasetti Engineers, et al., No. 06A05-0906-CV-327: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Thorton Tomasetti Engineers on cross-claims against the company for common law indemnity, contractual indemnity, and breach of professional standard of care.

The library was assigned the cross-claims against TTE that were originally filed by Woollen Molzan and Partners Inc. pursuant to a settlement between the library and WMP.

The complaints against WMP and TTE filed by the library, and the subsequent cross-claims filed by WMP and TTE stem from the construction and renovation of the Central Library in Indianapolis. WMP served as architect of record on the project and WMP and TTE executed an architect/consultant agreement for which TTE served as the structural engineer of record for the project.

Shortly after construction began on the project, major issues were found in the concrete beams and columns of the underground parking garage, which would be the foundation for the new library tower. Construction had to be suspended and millions of dollars in costs and delays were accrued.

In 2006, the library and WMP settled and WMP assigned the library all the claims it has or may have against TTE and other consultants. The library never amended the cross-claims. In November 2008, the trial court ruled in favor of TTE on the three cross-claims originally filed by WMP.

The Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of TTE on the cross-claims for common law indemnity and contractual indemnity. The library, as WMP’s assignee, doesn’t possess a valid cause of action under a theory of common law indemnity because WMP hasn’t yet paid any damages in satisfaction of any claim or judgment against TTE. Because of this, the common law indemnity claim is not yet ripe for adjudication, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

Also, given the nature of the library’s claims against WMP, WMP’s liability to the library with regard to TTE can’t be solely derivative or constructive because WMP can’t be without fault. WMP’s alleged liability to the library in relation to TTE is purely contractual and direct and the library can’t now escape its own allegations and recast its claims against WMP as being solely derivative, the judge continued.

There was no indemnity provision in the contract between WMP and TTE that runs to WMP from TTE, so there can be no cause of action for express contractual indemnity against TTE. But the library argued that WMP is entitled to implied contractual indemnity. The Court of Appeals declined to adopt the doctrine of implied contractual indemnity in the instant case because WMP and TTE were free to include an indemnity provision in the contract that allocated the risk between them but didn’t do so.

“We agree with TTE that adopting the doctrine would ‘invite havoc into not only contract cases in the construction setting but throughout the spectrum of civil cases,’” wrote Judge Crone.

The appellate court did reverse summary judgment for TTE on the cross-claim of breach of professional standard of care because the trial court erred in determining this cross-claim was actually a claim for indemnity. It’s up to a jury to determine whether TTE committed a breach that directly injured WMP. This cross-claim was remanded for further proceedings.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT