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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT