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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT