1. Residential Real Estate. Landowners filed a petition for certiorari to challenge a decision of the county board of zoning appeals who held that a guesthouse building on the landowner's property violated a county zoning ordinance. The trial court reversed, and the board appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not prohibit landowners from using their accessory building as a guesthouse for occasional visitors. Hamilton County Planning Commission v. Nieten, 876 N.E.2d 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
2. Environmental Law - Manufacturing. An automobile parts manufacturer brought a breach of contract action against the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), after IDEM recanted its approval of the manufacturer's PCB spill cleanup proposal. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, and IDEM appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding that the contract was unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management v. Raybestos Products Co., 876 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
3. Business - Stock Transactions. Purchasers of common stock in first corporation, in transaction involving exchange of their stock in second corporation, brought an action under the Indiana Securities Act against the first corporation and its directors, alleging that the first corporation sold unregistered securities and failed to make material disclosures. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the purchasers, as to claims against an outside director. The outside director appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed and transfer was granted.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the outside director did not establish an affirmative defense to liability under the Indiana Securities Act. Lean v. Reed, 876 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. 2007).
4. Negligence Action. A lake visitor, who dove off a dock and struck his head on a dredge pipe located on the channel floor, brought a negligence action against the nonprofit corporation that owned lake. The corporation asserted affirmative defenses, including named non-parties. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment against the corporation in the amount of $1,019,400.00, and the corporation appealed.
The Indiana appellate court affirmed, holding that: (1) the lake was held open to the public, and, thus, the visitor was an invitee, rather than a licensee; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the corporation's motion to bifurcate issues of liability and damages; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a vocational economic analyst to testify regarding the impaired earning capacity of the visitor; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying corporation's motion to withdraw its nonparty defense at the conclusion of trial. Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corp. v. Stichnoth, 877 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
5. Products Liability - Protection of Manufacturer's Formula. An automobile accident victim's estate brought a products liability claim against a tire company. The tire company moved for a protective order to prevent disclosure of the rubber formula for steel-belted radial tires. The trial court entered an order for the tire company to produce the formula with restrictions on dissemination. The tire company petitioned for interlocutory appeal and transfer was granted.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that: (1) as a matter of first impression, a three-part balancing test is the proper analysis for whether good cause has been shown and that a protective order should be issued for trade secret production during discovery; (2) the manufacturer adequately demonstrated that the steel belt skim stock formula was a trade secret; and (3) disclosure of the formula was not necessary. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry, 878 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 2007).
6. Construction Law. Prospective purchasers of a home brought an action in the Superior Court, Marion County, against a construction contractor, seeking damages and specific performance. The action was dismissed, apparently for failure to prosecute. The prospective purchasers filed an action in the Circuit Court, Marion County, against the construction contractor, seeking damages and specific performance. The Superior Court action was reinstated, the subsequent purchaser was added as defendant, and the subsequent purchaser brought a cross-claim against the construction contractor. The actions were consolidated. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the subsequent purchaser as to prospective purchasers' claims, and the order was certified as final and appealable. The prospective purchasers appealed.
The Indiana appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the valid lis pendens notice in Circuit Court action provided the subsequent purchaser with constructive notice of the specific performance claim asserted in the reinstated Superior Court action. Clarkson v. Neff, 878 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
7. Real Estate - Quiet Title Action. The eastern landowners brought an action against the western landowners claiming trespass and damage to the disputed tract of land. The western landowners filed a counterclaim to quiet title and for damages. The eastern landowners filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to quiet title by adverse possession. The trial court denied the motion, and following a bench trial, quieted title in favor of the western landowners. The eastern landowners appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding that: (1) the eastern landowners failed to request summary judgment on the specific issue of whether they initially acquired title by adverse possession and, thus, could not complain on appeal that the trial court failed to enter summary judgment on that specific issue; (2) Court of Appeals could treat as "surplusage" the trial court's purported "findings of fact" which merely restated the testimony of witnesses; (3) the eastern landowners established control of the disputed tract; (4) the eastern landowners established an intent to claim ownership of the disputed tract; and (5) the western landowners had constructive notice of the eastern landowners' intent and control of the disputed tract. Garriott v. Peters, 878 N.E.2d 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
8. Insurance Coverage for Defense Against Environmental Claims. Insured brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer to recover costs to defend against an environmental claim for three and one-half years before the insured gave the insurer notice of the claim. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer and the insured appealed.
The Indiana appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded, holding that: (1) the insured's delay was unreasonable but, (2) factual issues precluded summary judgment on the question of whether the insured rebutted the presumption of prejudice against the insurer. Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 878 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
