ILNews

Justices accept 2 civil cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two civil cases got the go ahead from the Indiana Supreme Court this week to move up for consideration by the state's justices.

During its weekly conference on Thursday, the justices granted transfer in the cases Suzanne Eads, et al. v. Community Hospital, No. 45A03-0807-CV-350, and Sheehan Construction Co., et al. v. Continental Casket Co., et al., No. 49A02-0805-CV-420.

The Eads case involves the issue of whether the Journey's Account Statute applied to a woman's medical malpractice claim filed after the statute of limitations expired. A split Indiana Court of Appeals last year affirmed summary judgment in favor of the hospital in Eads' medical malpractice claim that resulted from a fall in the hospital while using crutches. Eads was in the hospital for an ankle injury and asked for a wheelchair to exit the hospital; personnel refused and gave her crutches. She fell in a foyer area and injured her back and left hand. Justices will decide how the Journey's Account Statute applies in a medical malpractice case that follows an underlying negligence claim against the hospital where a plaintiff was injured.

In Sheehan, the Court of Appeals last year affirmed a Marion Superior Court decision to enter summary judgment in favor of insurers and an insurance broker. The case involves a group of homeowners who alleged their homes were negligently constructed by Sheehan's subcontractors. Though the parties settled for about $2.8 million, that sparked a coverage issue relating to Sheehan's comprehensive general liability policy and whether the company should be indemnified. Ultimately, Sheehan asked the justices to take up the issue, which involves disputes about what coverage, if any, is provided by commercial general liability insurance policies after allegedly faulty workmanship by a subcontractor. Justices heard arguments Thursday morning and granted transfer later in the day.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT