ILNews

Court allows relief under Crime Victims Statute

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Contract provisions that exempt a party from liability under the Indiana Crime Victims Statute are void when the party violates public policy, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

In The State Group Industrial (USA) Unlimited v. Murphy & Associates Industrial Services, No. 82A04-0703-CV-158, State Group appealed the trial court judgment denying the company's request for relief under Indiana Code 34-24-3-1, the Crime Victims Statute. The trial court awarded State Group actual damages, but denied relief under the statute based on a contract provision between State Group and Murphy & Associates (M&A).

M&A prepared an estimate for State Group regarding supplying materials for a control system project in Texas in which State Group was the prime contractor. The project aimed to ensure the safety of a community's drinking water. At a meeting between the two companies, M&A confirmed that salinity probes, which are necessary components for the control system, would be part of the contract and M&A would provide engineering for the start-up process.

Once M&A began submitting invoices to State Group for payment, there were discrepancies between the invoices and the original contract. The two companies did not discuss changing the terms of the contract and M&A misrepresented to State Group that it had paid for materials in full and no other party had claim on the materials for the control system.

State Group paid the invoices in full, but did not receive the salinity probes and necessary cabling. State Group was forced to hire a replacement subcontractor to obtain the materials, including necessary software, which M&A was supposed to provide. M&A filed a complaint against State Group alleging breach of contract. State Group counterclaimed, saying that M&A breached the contract. State Group also claimed fraud, and sought damages under the Crime Victims Statute.

The trial court found M&A breached the contract and knowingly made numerous false or misleading statements, and awarded State Group actual damages.

The trial court concluded M&A violated I.C. 35-43-5-3, committing deception, which allowed State Group to bring an action under the Crime Victims Statute. The issue of whether a contract provision can exempt a party from liability under this statute for violating public policy is something Indiana hasn't ruled on, wrote Judge Margret Robb. Other states have ruled that a party may not contract against liability for intentional tortuous acts.

Other states' courts have ruled public policy violations are not included in contract liability protection clauses when the conduct is intentional, a matter of gross negligence, or willful and wanton misconduct. The Indiana appellate court is more likely to hold an exculpatory clause to be against public policy when it affects public interest in utilities, she wrote in a footnote.

Recovery under the Crime Victims Statute is not based on breach of contract, but must be predicated on an independent tort, wrote Judge Robb. Under Indiana law, a contract may release a party from liability for damages caused by its own negligence, but these clauses must specifically and explicitly refer to the negligence of the party seeking release from liability, Avant v. Cmty. Hosp., 826 N.E.2d 7, 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Release from liability cannot happen if the contract provisions are phrased in general terms. The indemnification clause in the contract between State Group and M&A was not specific, as it did not refer to the criminal or fraudulent conduct on the part of M&A, thus M&A was not protected from liability under the Crime Victims Statute.

The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that it exercise its discretion in determining whether to award damages and the amount of any damages.
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

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. 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

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT