Romack v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, 22S04-8708-CV-765

Decision Date20 August 1987
Docket NumberNo. 22S04-8708-CV-765,22S04-8708-CV-765
Citation511 N.E.2d 1024
Parties3 IER Cases 998 Jay H. ROMACK, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Appellee (Defendant Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DICKSON, Justice.

This case is before us on petition to transfer from the Court of Appeals which summarized the issues and facts as follows.

Jay H. Romack appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (PSI) on Romack's claims of fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, retaliatory discharge and denial of due process. Romack makes the following arguments on appeal:

1) The trial court erred when it refused to consider his supplemental affidavit in ruling on his motion to correct errors;

2) His discharge was unlawful because it violated an enforceable oral contract of employment which could not be terminated "at will" by PSI.

3) Summary judgment was inappropriate on the wrongful discharge claim because his discharge was in retaliation for the performance of a statutory right or duty;

4) The trial court erred in granting PSI's motion for summary judgment because the pleadings and evidence supported a cause of action under theories of fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and denial of due process; and

5) Material issues of fact existed which precluded the entry of summary judgment on his various claims.

* * *

* * *

In 1977, Romack applied for the position of Corporate Security Manager at PSI but did not receive the position. However, two years later, PSI contacted Romack concerning an available position. At that time, Romack was a Captain of the Indiana State Police with twenty-five years of service to his credit. Romack informed PSI that he had "permanent employment" with the State Police and would not consider leaving his position there unless the new job offered the same "permanency" of employment, advancement and benefits. An employee of PSI told Romack that if he came to work for PSI, he would have "such permanent employment." With these assurances, Romack terminated his employment with the Indiana State Police and began working for PSI on September 24, 1979 as an Operations Security Supervisor at the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating construction site.

As a result of his employment with PSI, Romack purchased a house trailer and rented a tract of land near his place of employment. Later, Romack purchased a home in that locality and moved his family to the area. PSI requested that Romack take this action so he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Gries v. Zimmer, Inc., C-C-87-0576-P
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 28 Febrero 1989
    ...independent consideration, see Romack v. Public Serv. Co., 499 N.E.2d 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (Conover, J., dissenting), rev'd, 511 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.1987) (adopting dissent's rationale), in the present case there is nothing establishing that Plaintiffs left jobs with guarantees of permanent I......
  • Mart v. Forest River, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 22 Febrero 2012
    ...could guarantee similar permanency. ... [G]ood cause must be shown in order to terminate such an employee....Romack v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Ind., 511 N.E.2d 1024, 1025–26 (Ind.1987) (emphasis in original) (adopting and incorporating Romack v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Ind., 499 N.E.2d 768, 776–79 (Ind......
  • Cripe, Inc. v. Clark
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 28 Septiembre 2005
    ...the employee only for good cause. Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712, 718 (Ind.1997) (citing Romack v. Public Serv. Co., 511 N.E.2d 1024, 1026 (Ind.1987) (adopting in substantial part and incorporating Judge Conover's dissent in Romack v. Public Serv. Co., 499 N.E.2d 768......
  • Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 21 Julio 1994
    ...in his employment under the unique exception set forth in Romack v. Public Service Co., 499 N.E.2d 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), modified, 511 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.1987). Wright argues that the Romack exception applies in this case. But the Romack exception comes into play only if: the employee is uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT