ILNews

Judge rules on summary judgment motions in IBM case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The State of Indiana may be on the hook to pay IBM $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees per the contract it had with IBM to update the state’s welfare system, a contract the state cancelled in October 2009 because it wasn’t happy with results.

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer issued several rulings Wednesday in the lawsuit stemming from the cancelled contract between the state and IBM. The state hired IBM in 2006 but cancelled the contract three years later and sued IBM to try to recover the millions it paid before ending the contract, plus triple damages. IBM countersued for breach of contract, arguing the state still owed around $100 million.

Dreyer rejected the state’s contention that IBM isn’t entitled to the $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees. The contract between the state and IBM said that the “state shall pay” IBM those fees, and there is no dispute that the state accepted assignment of the subcontracts at issue. The Family & Social Services Administration believes this ruling is an error and plans to appeal, according to a spokeswoman.

IBM also asked for $43 million in deferred fees due to the termination of the agreement as well as $9.3 million for equipment the state has but did not pay IBM for, but Dreyer denied summary judgment on those issues.

Dreyer ruled in favor of the state on IBM’s argument that its poor performance could be excused because of the economic downtown and flooding that occurred after the contract was signed. He found that any contention by IBM at trial that the economy or the flooding rendered its performance “impossible” or otherwise justifies any failure by IBM to meet contractual obligations are precluded as a matter of law.

There are also disputes of material fact as to whether there was a breach of the contract, so Dreyer denied the state’s motion for summary judgment on the matter.

The court has ruled the state is limited to recovering no more than $125 million in damages; if the state can’t prove IBM breached the contract, it could owe the company $100 million per a termination clause.

An issue that arose from this case is whether Gov. Mitch Daniels can be deposed. Dreyer originally ruled Daniels doesn’t have to be deposed, but later ruled that he can be. That issue will be before the Indiana Supreme Court Feb. 13.

The case is set to go to bench trial Feb. 27.

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT