ILNews

High court reverses $2.3 million jury award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court reduced a $2.3 million jury award in favor of an Evansville shopping center owner, affirming a previous ruling that shopping center owners aren't entitled to consequential damages from street reconfigurations that affect traffic flow to the shops and prevent expansion of existing exit and entrance points.

The high court was split 3-2 in its decision in State of Indiana v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., et al., No. 82S01-0806-CV-308, in which the majority reaffirmed its decision in State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342 (1960).

Kimco owns the Plaza East Shopping Center, which has two main entrances and exits on Green River Road in Evansville. The state acquired a 0.1540-acre strip of land along the western border of the shopping center to widen Green River Road and improve traffic flow to and from the Lloyd Expressway. Because of the construction, Plaza East couldn't add new entrances on Green River Road or widen its existing access points. The construction also modified the original traffic flow in and out of the center, but kept the existing entrances and exits.

After construction was complete, Kimco filed suit for damages, claiming the construction affected traffic flow to and from the complex and the shopping center had depreciated in value. The jury awarded Kimco $2.3 million, finding the company suffered a particular, private injury resulting from interference of Kimco's rights of ingress and egress. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the admittance of Kimco's loss-of-access evidence and the jury award.

Citing its previous ruling in Ensley, the Supreme Court found Kimco is only entitled to $100,700, the value of the physical taking of the strip of land and temporary construction easement. Although an elimination of rights of ingress and egress constitutes a compensable taking, the mere reduction in or reduction of traffic flow to a commercial property isn't a compensable taking of a property right, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

As in Ensley, Plaza East Shopping Center's existing access points hadn't been eliminated or narrowed as a result of the construction, nor did the reconfigurations deprive the owners of their right to ingress or egress.

"The only substantive allegation is that traffic flow to the shopping complex has been encumbered. Under Ensley and its progeny, these consequences from the State's roadway improvements are not compensable because no property right has been taken," he wrote.

While the instant case has a merge lane and entrance congestion that wasn't present in Ensley, neither affects the fundamental point that they aren't attributable to the deprivation of any property right.

The majority reversed the judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented, believing the Court of Appeals correctly decided the case.

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