Owner’s action in negligence for defendant’s discharge of pollutants onto real property that was once farmland but subsequently became a residential subdivision was not barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Weigand Construction Co. v. Stephens Fabrication, Inc., No. 18A02-0910-CV-953, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 25, 2010)
While plaintiff’s claim survived its subsequent voluntary bankruptcy proceedings, plaintiff did not timely make its claim pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract.
Howard v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 87A01-0910-CV-512, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 17, 2010)
Trial court erred in substituting underinsured driver for insurance company as the sole named defendant in contract case seeking recovery of underinsured motorist benefits, where the insurance company did not attempt to step into the shoes of and defend the tortfeasor or to preserve a subrogation interest.
M.T. v. State, No. 49A04-0908-JV-484, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2010)
Due process will not permit revocation of juvenile probation when the State has presented no evidence of the alleged probation violations.
Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hosp., No. 70A01-0911-CV-553, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2010)
Where hospital employee forcibly catheterized plaintiff for a urine sample after an oral statement from the police that the sample was court ordered, plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated factual issues as to whether: (1) the sample was obtained pursuant to a written request, (2) the taking of the sample constituted reasonable force, and (3) forced catheterization constituted a “medically accepted manner” for obtaining a urine sample, all pursuant to Ind. Code § 9-30-6-6. Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, however, because plaintiff was not a “patient” of the defendants.