ILNews

Judges affirm complaint is time-barred

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a trial court shouldn’t have adhered to its local rule because it failed to achieve “the ultimate end of orderly and speedy justice,” the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s finding that a woman’s claim against her deceased husband’s former employer was time-barred.

Sharon Gill sued Evansville Sheet Metal Works Inc. following her husband’s death, claiming he had been exposed to asbestos and died from an asbestos-related disease. ESMW worked as a contractor for her husband’s employer and materials containing asbestos were present or used.

ESMW filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the Construction Statute of Repose barred the complaint. The trial court initially denied in part the motion, but then granted summary judgment in favor of ESMW.

Before ruling on the case, the appellate judges paused to note their concern with the application of the Marion Circuit Court’s mass tort litigation rules to the case. Under those local rules, a case that is neither exigent nor set for trial is considered stayed, as is the case with this suit. Parties can file documents in a stayed case, but response time doesn’t begin until a case is set for trial, except under Local Rule 714. This rule lets a party in a stayed case file a summary judgment motion prior to discovery, which ESMW did.

In Sharon Gill, on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of Gale Gill, deceased v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., No. 49A05-0912-CV-699, the judges cautioned a trial court to not “blindly adhere” to all of its local rules, and keep in mind the ultimate end of orderly and speedy justice.

For Gill’s complaint to be barred by the Construction Statute of Repose, ESMW had to designate evidence showing that its work constituted “an improvement to real property” and the complaint was brought more than 10 years after the date of substantial completion of the improvement.

But Local Rule 714 prevented the appellate court from determining the scope of the work performed by ESMW because the motion for summary judgment was filed prior to discovery.

“A proper analysis of the statutory language ‘improvement to real estate’ necessitated detailed discovery. We believe that the trial court should not have adhered to the local rule as it failed to achieve ‘the ultimate end of orderly and speedy justice,’” wrote Judge Patricia Riley. “In sum, this cause did not lend itself to the application of local rule 714.”  

However, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment by finding ESMW’s work was completed more than 10 years before Gill filed her complaint. The designated evidence showed she filed her suit more than 10 years after the substantial completion of the project. Allowing her to proceed with a claim against ESMW now would create an open-ended liability which CSOR was designed to prevent.

“Thus, regardless whether there was an improvement to real estate, Sharon brought her claim outside the ten-year period stipulated in the CSOR and therefore, her claim is barred,” wrote the judge.
 

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