State will appeal IBM ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state is going to appeal Wednesday’s decision in Marion Superior Court that it pay IBM $52 million for ending early its billion-dollar contract with the company to update the state’s welfare system.

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer ordered the state pay IBM $12 million in early termination closeout payments and for equipment it retained after canceling the contract in October 2009. The judge ruled in January that the state owed IBM $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees for terminating the contract.

IBM and the state filed lawsuits against the other over the cancellation of the 10-year contract the state entered into with IBM to update Indiana’s welfare system. The $1.3 billion contract was signed in December 2006, but the state terminated it in October 2009, dissatisfied with IBM’s results.

The state sought more than $437 million from IBM, but Dreyer ruled earlier this year the most the state could recover is $125 million in damages. IBM wanted the state to pay it $100 million for terminating the contract early.

“The largely undisputed evidence shows that the Governor, the Family and Social Services Administration and various State of Indiana officials set out to fix Indiana’s poorly-performing welfare system by inserting an untested theoretical experiment, and substitute personal caseworkers with computers and phone calls,” the order says. “This is now admitted to be an error, and there is nothing in this case, or the Court’s power, that can be done to correct it, or remedy the lost taxpayer money or personal suffering of needy Hoosiers. All that can be done in this case is to take the first step at setting the final numbers among so many millions already spent.”

In a statement released by the governor’s office, the state focused on the improvements to Indiana’s welfare system performed by another vendor, which Gov. Mitch Daniels described as being the state’s most timely, accurate, cost-effective and fraud-free system ever.

Adam Horst, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said even if the ruling stands, it will not impact the state surplus. The state sets aside money for lawsuits.

The state’s attorneys, John Maley and Peter Rusthoven of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, released a statement saying, “Fortunately, the court’s ruling, while mistaken on some issues, has now rejected the great majority of IBM’s claims for additional money. This was another step in the right direction; and we are confident Indiana’s appellate courts will now set aside most if not all of the IBM claims that still remain.”

Wednesday’s ruling awards IBM $52,081,416, plus prejudgment interest and costs. The company is not entitled to damages for deferred fees or mandatory changes. The state got nothing out of its complaint.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit