ILNews

Justices: City can proceed with ELA claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the city of South Bend's claim under the Environmental Legal Action statute can continue because the statute of limitations hadn't run out. The high court did reverse summary judgment in favor of the city in its torts claims against a company because the statute of limitations bars the common law claims for environmental damage.

The Supreme Court issued a 32-page, unanimous decision Thursday in Cooper Industries, et al. v. City of South Bend, et al., No. 49S04-0711-CV-541. At issue was whether Cooper could be held liable for South Bend's claims of negligence, private nuisance, trespass, public nuisance, and an environmental legal action under Indiana Code Section 13-30-9-2 after discovering land it purchased that housed Studebaker manufacturing sites was contaminated. It discovered the contamination in the late 1980s. Through a series of acquisitions and mergers, Cooper Industries obtained the assets of Studebaker.

The city filed suit in March 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of South Bend on the issue of successorship, the city's common law claims, and that the ELA claim was timely because the city filed it less than six years after the ELA statute became effective. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 6-year statute of limitations barred all the claims.

The high court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of South Bend's common law claims, ruling the claims accrued more than six years before they were filed.

But South Bend can proceed with its ELA claim because it can be a plaintiff under the ELA and the addition of the ELA to current code created a new action, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. Since a new action was created, no cause of action could have existed before its effective date. South Bend's claims under the ELA couldn't have been brought before the action was added on Feb. 28, 1998. Adopting the six-year statute of limitations for this case, South Bend fell within the limits by filing its action March 19, 2003.

The Supreme Court also affirmed Cooper holds the corporate liability for surviving claims as a result of Studebaker's actions. There is sufficient evidence to support the 1967 transaction between Studebaker and Worthington, to form Studebaker-Worthington, constituted a de facto merger such that Cooper may be held to answer South Bend's claims, wrote Chief Justice Shepard. The trial court was also correct to find the 1967 transaction was a mere continuation of the earlier corporate forms.

Even though Cooper argues Delaware law should control because all of the acquiring entities were Delaware corporations, the Supreme Court ruled Indiana law applies because the claim is about property damage which happened in Indiana. The law of the place of the wrong occurred governs, wrote the chief justice.

The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the city's ELA claim.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT