Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court granted the transfer of two cases and denied 27 for the week ending May 10.
Kiera Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University looks at the case of an Indiana University student who was injured when a window on campus fell and hit her.
On April 23, 2020, Isgrig filed a complaint against the university alleging negligence and relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The university moved for summary judgment in June 2022.
It argued that it had neither actual nor constructive knowledge regarding any issue with the window, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not relieve Isgrig of proving that the university had either actual or constructive knowledge of an issue with the window, and that the university did not have exclusive control of the window, thereby rendering res ipsa loquitur inapplicable.
Isgrig argued that the window was under the exclusive control or management of the University and that, under the facts of this case, res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence on the part of the university.
The Monroe Circuit Court held a hearing and entered an order granting the university’s motion for summary judgment.
In reversing a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that whether the window was under the control and management of the university is a genuine issue of material fact.
An oral argument for the case has been scheduled for Oct. 1 at South Newton High School.
On May 6, the high court granted the transfer of Christine Cosme, et al. v. Debora A. Warfield, et al.
In the case, the high court ruled an Indiana trial court correctly granted judgment to an insurance company because evidence showed the company had no special duty to the family following the 2017 accident.
The court also reversed the trial court’s directed verdict for a second insurance company and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Christine and Roy Cosme sued Churilla Insurance and the Erie Insurance Exchange for breach of contract, seeking punitive damages after the family was not covered by insurance when they got into a crash.
In February 2017, the Cosmes’ son, Broyce, was arrested for possessing marijuana. BMV records mistakenly showed Broyce was the driver of the vehicle when he and his friends were arrested and, as a result, suspended Broyce’s license.
His suspended license posed a risk to the family’s insurance policy, who had until Oct. 28 to submit a coverage-exclusion form or lose their policy on Nov. 1.
Instead of signing the exclusion form, Roy planned to have Broyce send paperwork to Churilla Insurance showing the suspension was a mistake.
In the Supreme Court’s ruling, the court stated a trial court cannot weigh evidence or assess witness credibility to decide whether “sufficient evidence” supports an issue. The high court also noted these are fact-finding functions within the jury’s sole province.
The court held the trial court erred in granting judgment on the evidence to Erie because the family’s case-in-chief presented sufficient, but conflicting, evidence to prove Erie breached its contract.
Relying on Purcell vs. Old National Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012), the Supreme Court states that only after both sides have rested and a jury returns its verdict can a trial judge assess the evidence as a “thirteenth juror,” citing the Indiana constitution as protecting the rights of parties to have a jury weigh evidence.
All justices concurred.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.