Reimbursement to estate should be proportional

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled today that a proportional allocation of proceeds from a pre-trial settlement would be best way to reimburse an estate for funeral and burial expenses.

The high court accepted In the Matter of the Supervised Administration of the Estate of Lawrence W. Inlow, deceased; Anita Inlow v. Jason L. Inlow, et al., No. 29S02-0902-CV-89, to answer the question: To what extent is a decedent's estate entitled to payment from a pre-trial settlement of a wrongful-death action in which the settlement doesn't allocate specifically between different types of damages.

Lawrence Inlow was killed in 1997 when he was struck in the head by a blade of a company helicopter. At the time of his death, he had no will.

Inlow's widow, Anita, paid $284,000 in funeral and burial costs, and then sought and received reimbursement from the estate. After a settlement was reached in a wrongful-death action in federal court, the estate sought reimbursement of that money in 2004. The Hamilton County trial court ordered in 2007 that Inlow's estate receive full reimbursement of the $284,000.

Anita appealed, believing Indiana Code Section 34-23-1-1 requires the payment of funeral and burial expenses from a wrongful-death award to an estate only when the award specifies what amount should go toward funeral expenses. If the award is able to be used to reimburse the estate, she argued she and her dependent son will receive no portion of those monies.

The defendants in this case, the personal representative of Inlow's estate and his four adult children from a previous marriage, argued the statute requires the damages to be used first to reimburse the estate for the funeral and burial costs incurred whether or not a portion of the damages award was designated for these expenses.

A split Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court order, but the Supreme Court disagreed today. In its decision, Justice Brent Dickson wrote, "To impose upon all pre-trial wrongful death settlements a requirement that the net proceeds must first be allocated to medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses before distribution for other damages could frequently, as here, be inequitable and create an undesired counter-incentive to seek settlement."

The justices also disagreed with Anita's argument that none of the settlement could be paid to the estate for funeral or burial expenses because it didn't specify any of that recovered money was to be used for that purpose.

"It is quite apparent from the language of the Act that, in creating a statutory cause of action for wrongful death, the legislature intended particular attention to the payment of medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses," the justice wrote. "To extend this legislative objective to pre-trial settlements, a proportional allocation appears most equitable."

The court should direct payment from a pre-trial wrongful-death settlement the part of the medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses that corresponds to the ratio of the total of such expenses to the estimated total damages sustained.

The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the portion of the funeral and burial expenses that will be reimbursed to the estate from the wrongful-death settlement.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.