Today’s discussion looks at numerous recent cases ranging from the use of unsigned depositions at summary judgment, the possible need to provide details in support of damages calculations for actions sounding in breach of contract, whether Goodwin and Rogers apply to duty analyses beyond premises liability, the grounds for awarding class-action attorney fees, the scope of specific personal jurisdiction under Indiana law, and then take a deeper dive into the Seventh Circuit’s opinion affirming a bankruptcy court’s decision to pierce a corporate veil in order to attach a $7.5m judgment held by a former shareholder against the lone remaining shareholder.
Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000
Today, we look at a case whose procedural posture may be almost impossible to replicate that resulted in a successful remand motion from federal court in which the plaintiff asserted that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and an appellate court affirming a subsequent state-court jury verdict for $187,500.
Court of Appeals Holds Indiana Child Wrongful Death Statute Permits Award of Attorney Fees and Costs
This week we look to the Court of Appeals of Indiana decision in Angel Shores Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. Crays, which held that attorneys fees and costs are recoverable under the Indiana Child Wrongful Death Act.
Indiana Supreme Court: Evidence of Prior Alcohol Convictions Are Admissible to Support Punitive Damages Claim
This week we look at the final decision from long-serving Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker, which held that evidence of prior alcohol convictions are admissible in a drunk driving case to support a claim of punitive damages. We also look briefly at two other decisions this week from the Court of Appeals of Indiana. One of those decisions held that an expert in a medical malpractice case who testifies on the applicable standard of care may be cross-examined on his personal practices. The other examined the scope of the duty to warn and affirmed a jury verdict for a passenger injured when the vehicle she was in struck a semi on the side of the road, despite the driver of the car dying and being unable to testify whether he would have taken different actions had the truck driver turned on his emergency flashers.