Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (2003)—Liability of Firearm Owners

Plaintiff’s decedent was a police officer who was shot and killed by an adult. The shooter obtained the weapon from his parents’ home, without their knowledge or consent. The estate included the parents in its suit, arguing they were negligent in their storage of the weapon. The Supreme Court held such a claim was viable. The son was a career criminal and his parents previously aided him while he was a fugitive. The court recognized the parents had a duty to exercise reasonable care in how they stored and secured the weapon.

King v. Northeast Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (2003)—School Security

Plaintiff was beaten up in a school parking lot while waiting for a ride home. He sued the security company contracted by the school district and the district. The Supreme Court held the district was not immune and had a legal duty to provide security on its premises. They also held the student could sue the security company for failing to perform under the contract. They reasoned students were among the class of people to be protected by the contract.

New Welton Homes v. Eckman, et al. 830 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 2005) -  Discovery Rule and Statute of Limitations

A family contracted for a manufactured home.  The contract included a warranty requiring any claims for breach of contract be brought within one year.  Two years after the home was completed, the purchaser experienced foundation damage after substantial rains and sued the seller for breach of contract.  The plaintiffs argued the “discovery rule” should be employed with respect to contracts to extend warranty agreements contained therein. 

The Supreme Court noted Indiana law generally upholds contractual limitation periods shortening the time frame within which parties may commence litigation, as long as the contractual limitations are reasonable.  The Supreme Court further noted even otherwise valid limitation provisions can some times be avoided if a party can show fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or the existence of an illusory contract.  Here, the plaintiffs did not challenge the limitation provision on any of these grounds.  The Supreme Court refused to allow the “discovery rule” to supersede the contractual limitations period contained in the contract since both parties agreed to the contractual language and the language of the contract was not ambiguous.  Therefore, this case reinforces the fact contractual limitations periods will be upheld in Indiana.

Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc. 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005) - Construction Damages

The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant for construction of a three story family residence.  Approximately six months after the contract was entered, plaintiffs hired the co-defendant to install a stone and masonry exterior on the home.  Shortly after the stone façade was installed, water began to enter through gaps in the façade and substantial moisture problems arose.  Plaintiffs claimed walls, ceilings, floors, drywall, carpeting, and carpet padding were all damaged.  The issue presented to the Indiana Supreme Court was whether damages recoverable in tort for a defective product or service are governed by the “economic loss” doctrine.

Generally, under the “economic loss” doctrine, contract is the sole remedy for failure of a product or service to perform as expected.  As to a negligence claim, Indiana courts have held economic losses are generally not recoverable where the action is premised on the failure of a product to perform as expected unless the failure causes personal injury or physical harm to property other than the product itself.  Therefore, the “economic loss” doctrine permits tort recovery only for personal injury or damage to “other property.”  In this case, for reasons that are not entirely clear in the record, the plaintiff’s elected to forego any contract claim against the co-defendant, and based their claim against the co-defendant solely on its alleged negligence.  Ultimately the court determined the “economic loss” doctrine precludes tort recovery for damage to the façade, itself, but allowed tort recovery for the damage to the home and its parts as a result of the negligent installation of the façade.