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. 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