Rush, C.J.
Hoosiers rely on the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to ensure that their driving privileges are accurately recorded, and they expect it to correct errors that are brought to its attention. Erroneous driving records can lead to unwarranted traffic stops, loss of employment, and financial harm. Despite this reliance and these concerns, this case requires us to determine whether the Legislature intended to confer on Indiana’s more than 4.5 million licensed drivers a right to sue the BMV when damages allegedly result from inaccurate records. Though the Legislature often enacts statutes imposing duties on private persons and governmental entities alike, we recognize a private right of action only when a statute was intended to create one. And we will not infer such intent if a statute contains an independent enforcement mechanism or primarily protects the public at large.
Here, a driver sued the BMV for damages resulting from allegedly incorrect records that showed his license was suspended. The BMV moved to dismiss the driver’s claim, asserting that the statutes on which the driver relied did not create a private right of action, and thus the claim failed as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion.
We affirm. The Legislature has created the material error review process to correct inaccurate driving records—without awarding damages. And even when this enforcement mechanism does not apply, judicial review of BMV actions is available under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. Additionally, while the BMV has a statutory duty to maintain driving records, this duty primarily helps regulate drivers in the interest of public safety. For these reasons, we decline to infer a private right of action to seek damages. We also hold that the driver has failed to show that the BMV owes him a common-law duty to keep accurate driving records. As a result, the driver has failed to allege facts showing a legally actionable injury has occurred.
….
Applying these principles here, we hold that the Legislature did not intend the Driving Records Statute, or any other statute Kelly cites, to create a private right of action against the BMV. Rather, the Legislature created the material error review process as an independent enforcement mechanism to correct driving records. Ind. Code §§ 9-33-1-1 to -2-5. And even assuming that process doesn’t apply here, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA) provides for judicial review of the BMV’s actions. Id. §§ 4-21.5-2-5(18), -5-1. Moreover, the Driving Records Statute primarily protects the public at large from individuals who do not have driving privileges. We also hold that Kelly has failed to establish the BMV owes him a common-law duty to maintain accurate records. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint.
I. The Legislature has not created a private right of action for individuals to seek damages stemming from inaccurate BMV recordkeeping.
….
Applying this well-settled standard here, we decline to infer that the Legislature implicitly created a private right of action for drivers to seek damages that stem from inaccurate BMV records. Statutes provide independent mechanisms to correct BMV recordkeeping errors, and the Driving Records Statute primarily protects the public at large.
A. The Legislature has provided independent enforcement mechanisms to correct BMV recordkeeping errors through the material error review process and AOPA.
…
In the BMV’s view, the material error review process applies to both court-ordered and administrative suspensions. And we agree that the errors alleged by Kelly appear to be subject to material error review. Given the procedural posture of this case, we accept as true Kelly’s allegation that the BMV failed to act on the SR16 forms sent on his behalf. An SR16 is a form on which courts provide the BMV with abstracts of judgments on various issues involving a driver who has violated a motor vehicle law. State v. Reinhart, 112 N.E.3d 705, 714 n.8 (Ind. 2018); What are some common suspension and reinstatement forms?, https://faqs.in.gov/hc/enus/articles/115005236988-What-are-some-common-suspension-andreinstatement-forms [https://perma.cc/N5S6-LTS6]. Kelly’s references to SR16s suggest he is complaining, in substance, about an allegedly erroneous suspension the BMV imposed “under a court order,” which would render material error review applicable. I.C. § 9-33-1-1(1).
But even if the BMV’s alleged errors were not subject to material error review, they would still be judicially reviewable under AOPA…
Because the Legislature allows drivers like Kelly to correct inaccurate BMV records through material error review and subsequent judicial review—or failing that, through judicial review under AOPA—we will not interpret the Driving Records Statute or related statutes as implicitly creating a private right of action. 2 Just as we defer to the Legislature’s selection of an independent enforcement mechanism, “even if only an infraction,” Doe #1, 81 N.E.3d at 204, we defer to the Legislature’s decision to provide only for administrative and judicial review with the goal of correcting an agency’s erroneous actions.
B. The Driving Records Statute primarily protects the public at large.
Although the Legislature’s provision of independent enforcement mechanisms is dispositive, we also conclude that the Driving Records Statute primarily protects the public at large, not individual drivers. For this alternative reason, Kelly lacks a private right of action.
….
All in all, both the existence of independent enforcement mechanisms and the public safety mission of the Driving Records Statute lead us to conclude Kelly has no private right of action. Although we acknowledge the very real damages that can flow from BMV errors, separation-of-powers principles prevent us from stepping into the Legislature’s shoes and creating an actionable right “under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Doe #1, 81 N.E.3d at 204. Kelly has therefore failed to show he suffered an injury that was legally actionable through a private right of action. We next consider whether he has set forth an actionable common-law negligence claim.
II. Kelly has failed to establish that the BMV owes him a common-law duty to keep accurate records.
….
We do not condone the BMV’s alleged failings in this case. But as we have never recognized a common-law duty in these circumstances and Kelly has not established one exists under the Webb test, we decline to find such a duty here. Kelly has therefore failed to show he has a legally actionable common-law negligence claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Kelly’s complaint.
Massa and Molter, JJ., concur. S
laughter, J., concurs with separate opinion.
Goff, J., dissents with separate opinion
Slaughter, J., concurring.
The Court applies our precedent faithfully in holding that Chris Kelly does not have a private remedy against the bureau of motor vehicles. Thus, I concur in full with the Court’s decision that Kelly’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I write separately to suggest that in a future case we consider adopting a narrower, plain-statement rule when assessing whether the breach of a statutory duty gives rise to a private statutory remedy…
….
Goff, J., dissenting.
Chris Kelly sued the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) when the BMV failed to correct errors in his driving record after receiving multiple court forms, phone calls, letters, emails, and visits to the license branch notifying the BMV of the issue. Kelly sued the BMV for negligence and seeks compensatory damages after losing a job opportunity, getting multiple tickets, and having his car towed. The trial court granted the BMV’s motion to dismiss, and this Court affirms, concluding that the BMV did not owe Kelly a duty to maintain accurate records. I disagree. The applicable statutes impose on the BMV a duty to maintain records for each “individual” licensed, suggesting it owes a duty to those individuals rather than the public in general. See Ind. Code § 9-14-12-3(a). And the statutes do not contain a comprehensive enforcement mechanism that would preclude a private right of action. The BMV also owes Kelly a duty under the common law to maintain accurate records. At this early stage, Kelly’s action should proceed.
…