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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT