Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Supreme Court justices granted transfer to a case involving an insurance company that made negligence and spoilation claims against a company hired for renovation work after a house fire.
The case — Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana a/s/o Ramona Smith v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc, et al., 23S-CT-272 — was the only one granted transfer for the week ending Sept. 29.
Safeco Insurance Company determined during a preliminary scene examination that a 2019 fire in an Indianapolis home likely started in the kitchen, where a dehydrator was located.
Michaelis Corporation was hired to do restoration work and, according to the complaint, a representative for the company was told about the need to preserve the kitchen.
But Michaelis demolished the kitchen and discarded the dehydrator.
Safeco paid $510,861.46 in damages on the homeowner’s behalf and filed a lawsuit in October 2021 to recover the funds.
Safeco alleged claims of negligence and strict products liability against principal defendants including Blue Sky Innovation Group, Cabela’s Wholesale and Bass Pro. Safeco also alleged claims of spoliation and negligence against Michaelis.
An amended complaint alleged that the fire was caused by the dehydrator and that Michaelis breached its duty to Safeco when it discarded or destroyed the product.
Michaelis filed an Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, alleging Safeco failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Marion Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss in June 2022.
Safeco appealed, arguing it sufficiently pleaded its third-party spoliation claim to survive dismissal.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana agreed, reversing the trial court’s decision.
Michaelis filed a petition to transfer in July.
Oral arguments have been scheduled for 9 a.m. Nov. 13 in the Indiana Supreme Court Courtroom at the Statehouse.
Justices denied transfer to 22 other cases, including a post-conviction relief case involving an error in wording in an attempted sexual misconduct guilty plea.
In Porfirio Marin v. State of Indiana, 22A-PC-3006, Porfirio Marin was charged in 2004 with one count of Class B felony child molestation.
He was sentenced to one year after entering into a plea agreement with the state.
Through an interpreter, Marin, who was born in Mexico, indicated he understood the terms of the agreement.
More than a decade later, Marin traveled to Mexico for his grandmother’s funeral. Upon his return to the United States, he was detained by federal immigration authorities and claimed he was told “to clear [his] case” in order to “get [his] green card back.”
Marin filed a post-conviction relief petition in which he alleged that the factual basis entered during the guilty-plea hearing had been insufficient to support his conviction and that his trial counsel had provided him with ineffective assistance.
The post-conviction court denied Marin’s PCR petition.
Despite an error in the wording of the plea agreement, the Court of Appeals upheld the denial, finding Marin was adequately made aware of the elements of the offense to which he pleaded guilty.
Justices split in denying transfer to another case involving a plea agreement: Justin A. Warren v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-1653.
In a June memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed Justin Warren’s appeal of his five-year sentence for Level 5 felony robbery, finding he waived his right to review when he entered into a written plea agreement.
All justices concurred in the denial, except for Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush.
Rush has voted in the past to grant transfer to cases where the petitioner has argued their plea agreement’s wording was ambiguous.
In a dissent in August, Rush wrote “recurring errors” with guilty pleas “are alarming and, increasingly, deprive Hoosiers of their constitutional right to appeal their sentences.”
The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday modified an opinion on rehearing, reaffirming that a man convicted on several theft-related charges can’t directly appeal his sentence after he and his attorney signed a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal.
Rush joined in Justice Christopher Goff’s dissenting opinion in which he wrote that a man’s appeal waiver should be found as unenforceable after the trial court misled him to believe he still retained a right to appeal.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.