Jury awards $27M in damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven years ago, a propane water heater explosion leveled an apartment attached to a rural Morgan County barn, resulting in one man’s death and six of his family members being severely burned.

A liability lawsuit filed by the victims a year after the May 2004 blast went through years of pretrial proceedings and discovery disputes, and this November the family received a jury verdict of $27 million. With liability split between the property owner and defendants, the final damages amount translates to $17.5 million.

explosion-15col.jpg A May 2004 propane explosion in Morgan County destroyed an apartment and connected horse barn, resulting in one man’s death and six others being burned. A jury recently awarded $27 million in damages to the victims – $17.5 million after liability was calculated. (Submitted photo)

Plaintiffs’ attorney David Herzog believes that final verdict may be the largest in the county’s history, but the litigation is far from finished as the parties continue debating attorney fees and an appeal is planned. Legal lessons from the litigation are focused on what led to the $27 million verdict and liability-limited amount, how the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder played into the trial and the question about what monetary amount is warranted in these types of situations.

“We are pleased with the jury’s verdict,” said Herzog, an attorney with Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis. “This has been a very long process and it’s been quite an ordeal for our clients. They suffered not only horrific injuries and the loss of a husband and father, but they continued to suffer from emotional distress. That was a key part of this case and received considerable attention at trial.”

At the heart of the litigation is the May 12, 2004, explosion at the farm located about 12 miles northwest of Martinsville. The owners, William and Betty Kindle, were away on a 50th anniversary cruise and their granddaughter, Courtney Frederick, agreed to house-sit. Her husband, Stephan, and 2-year-old son, Samuel, were with her, as well as her uncle, Lonnie Kindle; 2-year-old cousin, Sierra Davis; and Sierra’s parents, K.C. and Jodi Davis.

They were all sleeping inside when the explosion happened shortly after 7 a.m., and Stephan was killed while the others were burned. The victims sued a year after the incident and discovery disputes ensued before the liability trial happened in 2010. Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly began as special judge in late 2008 after one of the utility defendants asked for a new judge in the case that would end up with more than 200 motions and filings and lead to a three-week jury trial.

Last year, the jury decided South Central Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corp., RushShelby Energy Rural Electric Cooperative and SCI Propane LLC were 65 percent liable for the accident, and that Courtney’s now-deceased grandfather shouldered the remaining 35 percent liability.

A side issue about what defendants needed to turn over in discovery arose. Last year, the Court of Appeals reversed a sanction against defendant water-heater maker White-Rodgers that Moberly had imposed for not turning over certain material in the litigation. The appellate panel found White-Rodgers had turned over what it needed to and reversed the sanction. At trial, the jury found White-Rodgers wasn’t liable in the explosion.

In November 2011, the damages aspect of the trial took place and found the defendants at fault for $17.5 million in damages for the victims. Herzog said it’s too early to know what amount the plaintiffs might actually receive, depending on the appeal. He didn’t know any details on how the money could be used if the verdict is upheld.

“As inadequate as it may be, money is the only way our system compensates people in these circumstances and that jury found that was necessary in this case,” he said.

For the damages trial, Herzog spent part of the trial telling the jurors about the explosion from Courtney’s perspective. When trying to escape the burning house in the explosion’s aftermath, the then-28-year-old mother grabbed her young son and pushed her husband and uncle outside through a hole in the living room wall, burning her arms and other parts of her body. She went back inside and scooped up Sierra, saving the girl’s life.

Aside from telling the story of what happened in the explosion, Herzog said a key strategy in the damages trial was emphasizing the emotional distress and post-traumatic stress disorder that resulted from the tragedy. The plaintiffs called in the treating physicians and burn unit nurses, as well as mental health professionals and experts in PTSD. While testimony from experts on the economic losses the victims faced as a result of the tragedy is the same type of evidence presented in any personal injury or wrongful death case, Herzog said the emotional and mental health experts’ testimony was more unique.

“I think the post-traumatic stress aspect factored more heavily in this case than most, that would be my suspicion,” Herzog said.

kindle-table.gifDefense attorneys in this case questioned whether the victims did enough to treat and deal with their emotional distress and PTSD. The plaintiffs’ counsel offered expert testimony and evidence proving how common it is for victims to not want to trigger memories of the incident and to avoid some treatment. Experts said that while the incident itself was traumatic, the post-explosion treatment and burn therapy was also traumatic and factors into the damages discussion. Adults can rationally understand what is happening but children, such as the pair of 2-year-olds who were burned, cannot reason through that experience. Another related aspect that surfaced was whether any certain amount of damages was needed and what that might mean for the victims.

Other personal injury attorneys in Indiana say the PTSD aspect doesn’t surface in litigation as much as other related issues, such as emotional distress, which involves some of the same litigation elements in testimony and evidence.

In Indianapolis, plaintiff lawyer Scott Montross said he’s only been involved in one PTSD case and said the common challenge in those types of cases involves the disorder not being diagnosed immediately after a traumatic event. The condition affects people in different ways, with some suppressing it entirely while others obtain limited counseling. Montross said he has consistently found in more than 40 years of litigating that clients deposed a year or more after an incident will sometimes breakdown as soon as the questions gets anywhere close to what happened with the traumatic event.

“As for the damages amount associated with this area, I’m convinced these damages are every bit as real as the physical injuries,” Montross said. “In fact, while the physical can eventually subside, the emotional piece can be another issue altogether. I’ve told juries before and will tell them again, when you get into these size damages, it isn’t how much, as it is whether the harm has been balanced. And the extent of the harm is a function of the evidence presented.”

Defense attorney Kent Frandsen with Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson declined to comment about factual or legal rulings in the lawsuit since the case is still pending before the trial judge on an attorney fees issue and an appeal is planned on the damages aspect.

“We will ask the appellate court to review several matters, including the judge’s post-verdict reallocation of the jury’s findings of fault,” Frandsen said. “Almost half of the damage award is for fault the jury found to be the responsibility of non-party Midland-Impact, not the SCI Propane companies. Also, we believe insufficient evidence was presented to support any finding of fault by SCI in this case.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?