Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker, 2-682A163
| Decision Date | 23 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-682A163,2-682A163 |
| Citation | 464 N.E.2d 12 |
| Parties | MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Delmar BROEKER and Barbara Broeker, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joseph M. Dietz, Rick D. Meils, Meils, Zink, Thompson, Page & Dietz, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Louis Buddy Yosha, Teresa L. Todd, Yosha & Cline, Indianapolis, for appellees.
Miller Pipeline Corporation appealed from an adverse jury verdict awarding $75,000 punitive damages. In our decision of February 27, 1984, we reversed the award, holding that conduct for which punitive damages may be awarded must demonstrate malice or an equivalent state of mind and that a heedless disregard of the consequences, absent an oppressive or malicious state of mind, was insufficient to justify such an award. Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker (2d Dist.1984) Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 177, 185.
On petition for rehearing, the Broekers, pursuant to Appellate Rule 8.4(B), have filed additional authority in support of the punitive damages award, to-wit: Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Charles Traina and Michelle Traina (4th Dist.1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 693. Orkin was decided one month after our decision in Miller Pipeline, supra. It holds that wilful or wanton misconduct alone will support an award of punitive damages.
We acknowledge that Orkin's specification of the conduct necessary to an award of punitive damages contemplates something considerably less than the malice standard we enunciated in Miller Pipeline, and as such, constitutes a direct contradiction. However, we believe Orkin incorrectly states the law and decline the invitation to adopt its rationale in preference to our decision of February 27, 1984.
Accordingly we deny rehearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuttle v. Raymond
...179-80, 185, with Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. v. Traina, 461 N.E.2d 693, 702-03 (Ind.Ct.App.1984); see Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker, 464 N.E.2d 12, 12 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (rejecting the Orkin standard, which "contemplates something considerably less than the malice standard ... enun......
-
In re Guy
...was insufficient to justify such an award. This was re-affirmed by the court on a petition for re-hearing, Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker, 464 N.E.2d 12 (Ind.App. 2nd Dist.1984) despite the ruling by the Fourth District in Orkin Exterminating Co. Inc. v. Traina Tiana, 461 N.E.2d 693 (Ind.......
-
General Elec. Co. v. Speicher
...appellate courts disagree on whether the conduct must be malicious or need only be willful and wanton. See Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker, 464 N.E.2d 12 (Ind.App.1984) declining to follow Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Traina, 461 N.E.2d 693 (Ind.App.1984). In any case, defendant's conduct wa......
-
Bank of New York v. Bright
...(1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 349, 358-65; Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker (1984), Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 177, 185, opinion on rehearing 464 N.E.2d 12; First Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Mudgett (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 1002, 1006; Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Central Beverage Co. (1977),......