Ardis W. Tucker, Sr. and Sandra D. Tucker v. Tom Raper, Inc. and Clarke Power Services, Inc.
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 322
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Tuckers owned an RV insured by American Family; the RV was lightning-damaged in 2012 and then further damaged while being repaired in 2014.
- American Family arranged repairs with Tom Raper, Inc.; Raper in turn sent the RV to Clarke Power Services for transmission work. American Family accepted repair estimates from both shops.
- After multiple repair attempts, electrical problems persisted; the RV was ultimately declared a total loss by American Family in 2015.
- In June 2016 the Tuckers sued Raper and Clarke, alleging breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries of contracts between American Family and each repairer, and asserting related tort claims.
- Raper and Clarke moved to dismiss, arguing third-party beneficiary status must be founded on a written contract and that the Tuckers failed to attach any written instrument as required by Ind. Trial Rule 9.2(A).
- The trial court ordered the Tuckers to attach the written contract; after they did not, the court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper for failure to attach a written contract under Trial Rule 9.2(A) when plaintiff pleads third-party beneficiary status | The Tuckers argued third-party-beneficiary status can arise from oral or written contracts; their complaint plausibly alleged such status without attaching a written instrument | Raper and Clarke argued a third-party-beneficiary claim requires a written contract showing intent to confer rights, so Trial Rule 9.2(A) required attachment and failure to attach warranted dismissal | Reversed: court held third-party-beneficiary claims are not limited to written contracts; dismissal under Trial Rule 9.2(A) was erroneous when the complaint could be read to allege oral contracts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cain v. Griffin, 849 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 2006) (discussing that, when interpreting a written contract, third-party beneficiary intent must clearly appear from the instrument)
- DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.3d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (recognizing contracts may be oral or written)
- F.W. Hempel & Co. v. Metal World, Inc., 721 F.2d 610 (7th Cir. 1983) (examining a third-party beneficiary claim based on an oral agreement)
- Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Parrett, 346 Ill. 252 (discussing the requirement that promisor liability to a third party must affirmatively appear from the contract)
- Freigy v. Gargaro Co., 223 Ind. 342 (discussing the rule on third-party beneficiary rights under contract law)