Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Teton Corporation, et al. - 11/21/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  November 21, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 72A04-1302-CT-55. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (“County Commissioners”) entered into a standard American Institute of Architects contract (“AIA contract”) with Teton Corporation for renovations to the Jefferson County Courthouse.  The AIA contract required the County Commissioners to provide builder’s risk insurance for the renovation project, but the County Commissioners decided to rely on the general policy of insurance maintained by Jefferson County instead, and did not notify Teton Corporation that they did not obtain the insurance coverage required by the AIA contract. The AIA contract between the parties also provided for a mutual waiver of the right to subrogation between and among the County Commissioners, Teton Corporation, and all subcontractors.

A fire during the renovation caused significant damage to the courthouse.  The County Commissioners filed a complaint against Teton and its subcontractors arguing that the County was entitled to damages not covered by insurance and to “non-Work property damage.”  Summary judgment proceedings ensued, and the trial court granted Teton’s and its subcontractors’ motions for summary judgment.  The County Commissioners appeal and argue that although under the AIA contract they waived their subrogation claims for damages to “work property”, they may still claim damages to “non-Work property” and litigate whether they may also claim for damages caused by gross negligence or willful and wanton acts.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT