Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday will hear arguments on whether Greenwood Park Mall’s owner and its contracted security company can be sued for negligence over a mass shooting, or whether such attacks are unforeseeable as a matter of law and therefore bar liability before discovery begins.
The case arises from the July 2022 mass shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall, where a gunman opened fire in the food court, killing three people before being shot and killed by an armed bystander.
Plaintiff Kaya P.R. Stewart was injured while sitting at a table with her sister when the shooting began. Although the sister, identified in the lawsuit as O.S., was not shot, bullets struck items she was carrying, according to court records.
Stewart and her family sued Simon Property Group, the mall’s owner and operator, and Allied Universal Security Services, LLC, which provided security services at the mall, in January 2024.
The lawsuit asserts premises liability and negligence claims, alleging the defendants failed to adequately secure the mall or monitor for dangerous individuals. The complaint alleges the gunman entered the mall with a large backpack containing assault weapons and remained in a men’s restroom for more than an hour before the attack.
The plaintiffs allege Simon owed a duty of reasonable care to protect mall patrons based on prior criminal activity at the mall and knowledge of mass shootings at malls and other public places nationwide. They further allege the security company failed to perform the duties it was hired to carry out to maintain a safe environment.
Simon and Universal moved to dismiss the case in March 2024 under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing that shootings are unforeseeable as a matter of law.
The plaintiffs countered that the cases cited by the defendants involved summary judgment, not motions to dismiss, and that Indiana’s notice-pleading standard requires courts to assume defendants’ knowledge of dangerous conditions at this stage of litigation. They also argued that Universal’s no-duty defense applies to property owners, not security companies, whose duties arise from contract.
The Marion Superior Court denied the motions to dismiss in May 2024, finding the plaintiffs had adequately stated their claims, though the court noted discovery could later lead to different results. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Universal had narrowly characterized the claims against it and that dismissal was premature without completed discovery.
The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision in Simon Property Group, L.P., a/k/a Simon Property Group, Inc., and Universal Protection Service, LLC, d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, LLC v. Kaya P.R. Stewart et al., 263 N.E.3d 776. Oral arguments are scheduled for 9 a.m. and will be streamed online.
Later Thursday, at 10 a.m., the court will hear arguments in PTI Union, LLC v. McBride, 261 N.E.3d 258, a separate case addressing personal jurisdiction in an asbestos-related mass tort.
Seven of the defendants, none of which were based in Indiana, moved to dismiss McBride’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(2). Marion Superior Court denied the dismissal because of defendants’ contractual relationship with an Indiana distributor and the volume of powder that was shipped to the state.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding no personal jurisdiction and stating that the defendants did nothing more than place the product into the stream of commerce.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.