Burton v. Estate of Davis
| Citation | 730 N.E.2d 800 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 39A05-9910-CV-468,39A05-9910-CV-468 |
| Parties | Robert BURTON, individually and as an agent and representative of Meese, Inc., and Meese, Inc., Appellants-Defendants, v. The ESTATE OF David DAVIS, Deceased by its Personal Representative, Roxann Davis, and Steve and Cari Ayler, Appellees-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Timothy L. Gray, Jeffrey L. Hansford, New Albany, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellants.
Merritt K. Alcorn, Heidi Kendall-Sage, Madison, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees.
This appeal arises from the trial court's response to a motion by Defendants Robert Burton ("Burton"), individually and as an agent and representative of Meese, Inc., and Meese, Inc. ("Meese") asking the court to dismiss portions and strike a portion of the supplemental complaint filed by Plaintiff Estate of David Davis, by its personal representative, Roxann Davis (the "Estate").1 Burton and Meese appealed the trial court's denial of portions of their motion and, in a separate appeal, the Estate appealed the grant of a portion of the motion. The two appeals have been consolidated for our review.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Burton and Meese raise one multi-part issue for our review. For purposes of clarity, we restate the issue as four separate issues (Issues I-IV). The Estate raises one issue, which we restate below as Issue V.
On October 20, 1997, vehicles driven by David Davis ("Davis") and Burton collided in Jefferson County. Immediately before the collision, Davis was driving a Ford Aerostar in a northerly direction near an intersection with the exit drive for the Madison Recycling Center. At the same time, Burton was operating a Meese vehicle and was attempting to exit the recycling center. Davis died in the collision.
The Estate filed a complaint alleging that the accident and Davis's wrongful death were caused by the acts and omissions of Burton and Meese.2 The Estate subsequently filed a supplemental complaint alleging (1) that Burton committed the act of intentional interference with civil litigation through spoliation of evidence when he "willfully, maliciously, and intentionally moved [Meese's] truck from its final rest position after impact, with [Davis's] van attached, in an effort to deceive and mislead the accident investigation and cover-up important potential evidence of the collision, i.e., initial point of impact and the final rest position of the vehicles"; (2) that Meese negligently hired and retained Burton, contributing to the alteration of the collision scene by Burton; and (3) that Meese negligently hired and retained Burton, contributing to Davis's death. (R. 21-22).
Burton and Meese filed a motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 12(B)(6).3 The trial court granted the motion as it applied to the Estate's allegation that Meese's alleged negligent hiring and retention of Burton contributed to Davis's death. The basis for the grant was the trial court's belief that the claim was for personal injury, and that the claim was precluded by the survival statute and subsumed by the wrongful death statute. The trial court denied the motion as it pertained to the spoliation claims. The trial court refused to strike the Estate's punitive damage claims.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R. 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, not the facts supporting the claim. Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc., 710 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R. 12(B)(6), this court must accept all factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true. Further, we must draw every reasonable inference in the plaintiff's favor from the alleged facts. Thompson v. Owensby, 704 N.E.2d 134, 136 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. denied. The dismissal of a complaint is appropriate only where it appears to a certainty that the Plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts. Gray v. Westinghouse, 624 N.E.2d 49 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied.
Burton and Meese contend that the Estate lacks standing to bring the action for the tort of intentional interference with civil litigation by spoliation of evidence (the "spoliation claim"). Specifically, Burton and Meese argue that (1) the authority of the personal representative of the Estate, Roxann Davis, is limited in a wrongful death action to whatever remedies were available to the victim, and (2) the Estate has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation on the spoliation issue.
The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper party to invoke the trier of fact's jurisdiction. Shourek v. Stirling, 621 N.E.2d 1107, 1109 (Ind.1993). The standing requirement mandates that courts act in real cases, and eschew action when called upon to engage in abstract speculation. Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.1995). The doctrine operates as a restraint on the exercise of jurisdiction in that the trier of fact cannot proceed where there is no demonstrable injury to the complaining party. Bennett v. Indiana Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 688 N.E.2d 171, 176 (Ind.Ct. App.1997), trans. denied. In order to establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he has sustained, or was in immediate danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a result of the conduct at issue. Id.
Burton and Meese are correct in their first argument insofar as it pertains to a personal representative bringing a wrongful death action. The personal representative in the present case, however, is bringing the Estate's spoliation claim as an independent action. The personal representative has authority "to maintain any suit in any court of competent jurisdiction, in [her] name as personal representative, for any demand of whatever nature due to the decedent or to his estate. . . ." Ind. Code § 29-1-13-3. Under the facts alleged in the supplemental complaint, Burton and Meese caused spoliation of evidence. Because it is the Estate which is damaged by spoliation, such spoliation, if proven, would provide the basis for a demand by the Estate for any damages resulting therefrom. Furthermore, such damages are indicative of the Estate's "personal stake" in the outcome of this action.4
Burton and Meese also contend that the Estate cannot have a "personal stake" in the outcome this action because the Estate did not exist as a legal entity at the time the alleged act of spoliation occurred. In support of this contention, Burton and Meese cite Clark v. Estate of Slavens, 687 N.E.2d 246 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).
Clark was abrogated by our supreme court in Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Richie, 707 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1999). The gist of Burton and Meese's argument, however, is based upon the Clark court's reliance on a statement in 1 FALENDER, HENRY'S INDIANA PROBATE LAW AND PRACTICE § 601, p. 236, wherein it was stated that prior to the entry of a trial court's order appointing a personal representative, the estate has no standing as a legal entity to sue or be sued. We do not believe this statement stands for the proposition that an estate is not damaged by the spoliation of evidence which occurs before a personal representative is appointed. Instead, the statement provides that the estate may not sue for damages caused by spoliation before such appointment.
Burton and Meese contend that the trial court erred in not granting their T.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint as it applied to the Estate's spoliation claim. Burton and Meese argue that the Estate's sole remedy is found in the wrongful death statute.
The right of a party to pursue an independent action for spoliation of evidence has been recognized in Indiana. See Thompson, id.; Murphy v. Target Products, 580 N.E.2d 687 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied; Levinson v. Citizens National Bank of Evansville, 644 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. In determining whether a spoliation action can withstand a T.R. 12(B)(6) challenge, we have referred to case law which analyzes duty issues. In Thompson, where the spoliation action was filed against a third party insurer, we first determined whether the insurer owed a duty to the plaintiff to refrain from destroying evidence. In so doing, we analyzed three main factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of the type of harm to the type of plaintiff at issue, and (3) the public policy promoted by recognizing an enforceable duty. Thompson, 704 N.E.2d at 136 (citing Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1991)).
Here, there is a direct relationship between the Estate, as plaintiff, and Burton and Meese, as the parties who allegedly caused spoliation of evidence. Thus, the relationship weighs heavily "in favor of recognizing a cognizable duty to maintain evidence." Id. at 137. It is reasonable to conclude that litigation was foreseeable at the time Burton backed up his vehicle. It should come as no surprise to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur. 1. Spoliation as an independent tort was discussed in Burton v. Estate of Davis, 730 N.E.2d 800 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), but this opinion was automatically vacated by the Indiana Supreme Court's grant of transfer. Indiana Appellate Rule......
-
Maynard v. Jackson County Ohio, Case No. 2:08-cv-1199.
...occurs, reasonable people can anticipate that a lawsuit may be filed. As the Indiana Court of Appeals observed in Burton v. Estate of Davis, 730 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ind.App.), opinion vacated upon settlement, 740 N.E.2d 850 (Ind.2000), “[i]t should come as no surprise to a motorist who neglige......
-
Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur. 1. Spoliation as an independent tort was discussed in Burton v. Estate of Davis, 730 N.E.2d 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), but this opinion was automatically vacated by the Indiana Supreme Court's grant of transfer. Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)......
-
Rsc Quality Measurement Co. v. Ipsos-Asi, Inc.
...evidence; and 2) foreseeability that the destroyed evidence would become the focus of subsequent litigation. Burton v. Estate of Davis, 730 N.E.2d 800, 805-06 (Ind.Ct.App.), opinion vacated upon settlement, 740 N.E.2d 850 (Ind.2000). In Ohio, the elements are similar, but stated more concre......