ILNews

Majority affirms default judgment against Sears

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today as to whether a department store was entitled to have a default judgment set aside.

Judge James Kirsch believed Sears Roebuck and Co. did all it was required to do with Razor, the maker of an electric scooter, under the Universal Terms and Conditions contract the two companies had when it learned it was being sued. But the majority believed Sears’ third-party administrator was inattentive in monitoring the claim, which led to the default judgment being entered against Sears.

Vicky James sued Sears and Razor after her son fell and injured himself on a scooter she bought at Sears, alleging Razor defectively manufactured and designed the scooter and that Sears negligently sold and distributed it.

Sears forwarded the complaint to its third-party administrator and Nancy Hall was assigned to the case. She contacted James’ counsel, Richard Morgan, and general counsel for Razor, John Cochrane. Cochrane acknowledged Razor’s obligation under the UTC contract to defend Sears and that he had appointed John Obenchain as attorney.

The contract didn’t require Sears to send Cochrane written notice, but Cochrane waited to receive written notice from Hall confirming Razor’s duty to defend. She never sent it and Obenchain never appeared for Sears.

Seven months later, Hall tried following up, but sent e-mails to the wrong address. After reaching Obenchain, she learned of the default judgment entered against Sears and the $107,000 in damages award, and that he never appeared on the company’s behalf.

In Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Vicky James, et al., No. 71A03-1002-CT-104, Sears argued that the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment based on excusable neglect. The majority didn’t find any evidence of excusable neglect, but that Hall’s conduct in handling the litigation was “simple inattention.” She waited seven months to try to follow up with Cochrane; she could have contacted Obenchain directly. She also should have brought the case to the attention of her supervisor, which she did not.

The majority also concluded that James’ counsel’s conduct didn’t amount to misconduct that justified setting aside the judgment. They rejected Sears’ argument that James’ attorney should have contacted Hall prior to seeking default judgment. Hall is a claims adjuster, not an attorney, and under the Rules of Professional Conduct, James’ attorney wasn’t required to notify Hall of his intent to pursue default judgment, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

But Judge Kirsch believed Sears acted with due diligence and did everything it was supposed to do when it learned it was being sued. Hall contacted James’ attorney and the general counsel for Razor. Cochrane told Hall that Razor was contractually obligated to defend Sears and that an attorney had been appointed.

“The subsequent default was the result of a breakdown of communications which we have held to constitute excusable neglect,” he wrote.

He also noted that setting aside default regarding Sears wouldn’t prejudice Razor in any way, and the only harm to the plaintiffs would be they couldn’t collect a judgment to which they may not be entitled on the merits of their claim. Judge Kirsch would vacate the default judgment and allow the case to go forward for a determination on its merits.
 

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