ILNews

Expired time limit does not prevent estoppel argument, Supreme Court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing the reasoning in a dissenting opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled an injured driver can present his argument of why he should be allowed to file a lawsuit against a government entity even though the time limit has expired.

John Schoettmer was injured on Nov. 24, 2008, after he was involved in vehicular accident with Jolene Wright, who was working for South Central Community Action Program Inc. He underwent a series of medical treatments and filed all the paperwork needed to settle his claim with Cincinnati Insurance Co., South Central’s liability insurer.

Schoettmer declined a settlement offer and eventually sued Wright and South Central for personal injury damages.

In an amended complaint, South Central asserted that as a political subdivision governed by the Indiana Tort Claims Act, it could not be sued by Schoettmer and wife Karen because the plaintiffs had not provided a notice of their claim within ITCA’s 180-day deadline.  

The trial court granted summary judgment in South Central’s favor and a split Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. However, Judge Terry Crone dissented, arguing South Central should be estopped from asserting the Schoettmers’ noncompliance with the ITCA.

Like Judge Crone, the Supreme Court agreed with the Schoettmers’ argument that equitable estoppel should prevent South Central from using the ITCA time limit as a defense. The Schoettmers were not aware the agency was a government entity covered by the act.

In John W. Schoettmer & Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright & South Central Community Action Program Inc., 49S04-1210-CT-607, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.

Writing for the court, Judge Mark Massa pointed out that Schoettmer failed to act because of his reliance on the insurer’s instructions.

The insurance agent told him repeatedly to wait until all his medical treatments were complete before settling his claim. He provided a recorded statement and access to his medical records and bills by April 22, 2009. However, Cincinnati Insurance did not issue a settlement offer until Aug. 20, 2009, nearly three months after the 180-day time limit had expired.

“Thus,” Massa wrote, “we are included to agree with Judge Crone that ‘the designated evidence reveals that genuine issues of material fact remain, and the Schoettmers should be allowed to present proof of estoppel to the trial court.’”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • time limits
    Why does the government think they have the right to set time limits on filing law suits? If they can do this there should be a statute of limitations on everything including murder! This may sound extreme but all things are supposed to be equal under the law!

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT