ILNews

Wrongful death statute allows for attorney fees, other costs

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Compensation for attorney fees and other costs can be awarded under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, ruled a Court of Appeals panel today.

In the case relying on the interpretation of the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, the appellate court affirmed the Marion Superior Court ruling in Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Beverly S. Brown, et al., No. 49A02-1001-CT-80.

Beverly S. Brown, as executor of the estate of her sister, Barbara J. Frieden, had settled a medical malpractice claim for the statutory limit after Frieden died of a heart attack. She then petitioned the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund for additional compensation. The trial court awarded $278,377.55, which included compensation for attorney fees, litigation costs, estate administration costs, and loss of services to their parents. The fund appealed, arguing that those damages were not authorized under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

Judge Terry Crone wrote the panel agrees with Hematology-Oncology of Indiana, P.C. v. Fruits, 2010 WL 3250175 at *2-4 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2010), and Judge Patricia Riley’s dissent in McCabe v. Comm’r, Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 930 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. sought. In that case, she noted that Butler v. Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 904 N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. 2009), reiterated that the Adult Wrongful Death Statute does allow for the recovery of damages other than those spelled out in subsections (c)(3)(A) and (c)(3)(B).

“The AWDS must be narrowly construed, but the legislature used open-ended language to describe the damages available under the statute. Decisions discussing the history and purpose of wrongful death actions, such as Kuba, have indicated that the damages should be compensatory in nature. Therefore, treble and punitive damages have been disallowed. Durham, 745 N.E.2d at 761; Kuba, 508 N.E.2d at 2,” Judge Crone wrote. “By contrast, attorney fees, probate administration costs, and litigation costs are compensatory damages that remedy actual pecuniary losses. Therefore, we find no compelling reason why these damages should not be allowed.”

The fund had argued that pecuniary damages are “categorically unavailable” under the AWDS.

“We cannot agree. Loss of services, when proved, would constitute a pecuniary loss of the type contemplated by the AWDS. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court,” Judge Crone wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT