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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT