ILNews

Transfer sought in compulsive gambling case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Arguing that common law should protect anyone intentionally harmed by someone else, an Evansville attorney is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to consider a case of first impression in which he contends a compulsive gambler was targeted and taken advantage of by a casino, resulting in her loss of $125,000 in a single night.

"Harming another. Intentionally. Blessed by the government. Can this be true?" attorney Terry Noffsinger writes at the start of his 14-page transfer petition in Caesars Riverboat Casino v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31A01-0711-CV-530, which was filed Thursday before the state's highest court.

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel decided the case in March and later denied a rehearing request in May. The appellate judges determined that casinos don't have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves and aren't required to refrain from trying to entice those people into their establishments. That decision reversed a ruling from Harrison Circuit Judge H. Lloyd Whitis, who'd denied Caesars' motion and appeals to dismiss the counter-claim based on its legal sufficiency. Judges Paul Mathias and Carr Darden made up the majority, while Judge Terry Crone dissented.

The case dates to March 2006, when the Tennessee woman alleged she was enticed by the Indiana riverboat casino with a free hotel room, drinks, and meals, and ultimately allowed to borrow $125,000 from the casino in a single night. Kephart's six counter checks were returned for insufficient funds, and Caesars later sued to recover that money and treble damages. But Kephart filed a private negligence counter-claim that alleged Caesars took advantage of her condition as a pathological gambler, that it shouldn't have offered her the enticements in the first place, and was responsible for damaging her quality of life in order to unjustly enrich itself.

The majority analogized this situation to that of a compulsive shopper, noting that department stores have no common law duty to refuse sales or services to someone known to be a compulsive shopper. Judges also found that marketing to potential patrons isn't reckless and that Kephart's own behavior and foreknowledge of possible risks in going to the casino to gamble tipped the balance in the casino's favor.

But Judge Crone disagreed, writing in his own opinion that a common law duty should be imposed because of the casino's conduct in luring her to the casino with freebies. As it likely knew about her condition, the casino could have easily excluded Kephart from any direct marketing efforts and from the casino itself because of a statutory voluntary-exclusion program described in Indiana Code Section 4-35-4-2, the judge determined. But the casino didn't do those things.

In his transfer request, Noffsinger points to Judge Crone's rationale as a basis for why the justices should accept the case. He also notes this case presents a novel issue of great public importance and that the appellate panel has created an unconstitutional immunity that violates both state and federal constitutions.

"In its opinion, the majority opined that because the legislature had legalized casino gambling, and the Indiana Gaming Commission had promulgated certain rules ... that required casinos to 'cease all direct marketing attempts' to a person participating in the self-exclusion program, it had provided certain protections," Noffsinger wrote, pointing out this holding puts the burden on victims who suffer from psychological issues outside their control. "Legalized gambling, and other problems it brings with it, are not the issues in this case. What must be remembered is that granting transfer and reversing the (COA's) opinion does not give Kephart a 'win.' She must yet prove the allegations in her counterclaim .... What she is asking for is her day in court to present her case."

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT