ILNews

Divided appeals court affirms summary judgment for community action program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals panel on Friday affirmed a Marion Superior Court ruling that dismissed a case against a government-funded agency because the victims in a vehicle accident failed to provide notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

John Schoettmer was driving his vehicle when he was in an accident with a vehicle that was being driven by Jolene C. Wright, who worked at South Central Community Action Program. Schoettmer was injured and sued after rejecting a $12,868 settlement offer from the agency to cover his medical expenses.

In John W. Schoettmer and Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright and South Central Community Action Program, Inc., 49A04-1108-CT-406, Judge Melissa May wrote that the Schoettmers acknowledged that they didn’t provide notice to the agency as required in litigation against government agencies or political subdivisions that receive taxpayer funding.

“Instead, they assert their communications with South Central’s liability insurer, Cincinnati Insurance, substantially complied with the ITCA notice provisions. We disagree,” May wrote.  

“The trial court did not err when it granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Schoettmers did not timely file their ITCA notice, nor may they find refuge from their failure in the theories of substantial compliance, waiver, and estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court,” May wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Elaine Brown.

Judge Terry Crone dissented and wrote that Schoettmer worked with the insurer after the accident in December 2008 until the settlement offer was made in September 2009. More than a year later, the Schoettmers sued, but the insurer did not assert a defense under provisions of ITCA until amending their response to the suit more than 60 days after the initial response.

“I would not hold the Schoettmers’ counsel to a higher standard of due diligence regarding discovery of South Central’s governmental status than I would South Central’s own counsel,” Crone wrote in a dissent in which he said he would reverse summary judgment in favor of South Central and stop South Central from asserting the Schoettmers’ noncompliance with the notice provisions of the ITCA as a bar to their claims.

“Cincinnati Insurance’s behavior was misleading and John’s complete ignorance regarding South Central’s governmental status was reasonable,” Crone wrote.

 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT