Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
87 N.E.3d 462
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Bellwether Properties owns land subject to a 1957 perpetual utility easement granting Duke Energy a 10-foot-wide right-of-way for poles and lines.
- In 2002 the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission incorporated the 2002 National Electric Safety Code (NESC) by reference; the NESC sets minimum horizontal clearances for overhead lines that can exceed 10 feet depending on conductor type and voltage.
- In 2015 Bellwether sued Duke in inverse condemnation, alleging Duke’s maintenance of lines in accordance with the NESC imposes a 23-foot burden—13 feet beyond the easement—and thus effected a taking requiring compensation.
- Duke moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing the six-year statute of limitations began when the Commission adopted the 2002 NESC, so Bellwether’s 2015 claim was time-barred; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of the discovery rule; the Supreme Court granted transfer, reversed the 12(B)(6) dismissal, and remanded because the complaint’s face did not establish the claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Bellwether’s inverse-condemnation cause of action accrue? | Accrual occurred when Duke’s maintenance actually expanded the easement burden (i.e., when higher-voltage/clearance conditions produced the 23-foot burden). | Accrual occurred by operation of law when the Commission incorporated the 2002 NESC, which increased required clearances beyond the 10-foot easement. | The complaint did not on its face establish when the additional burden arose; dismissal under 12(B)(6) was premature. |
| Whether a 12(B)(6) dismissal is proper when a statute-of-limitations defense is asserted | N/A (argued Bellwether’s complaint survives because it need not anticipate defenses) | N/A (argued limitations bar claim) | A 12(B)(6) dismissal is improper unless the complaint conclusively shows the defense; here it did not. |
| Whether Bellwether must be charged with knowledge of the NESC despite incorporation by reference | The claim may be tolled until the burden actually occurred; accessibility of the incorporated NESC to the public is relevant. | Bellwether should be charged with knowledge of the law upon incorporation. | Court raised sua sponte that accessibility of the privately published NESC (incorporated by reference) is a remand issue—accessibility affects whether parties can be charged with knowledge. |
| Applicability of Tiplick v. State to notice/accessibility concerns | N/A | N/A | Tiplick (vagueness/statutory guidance) does not resolve the distinct accessibility question about copyrighted materials incorporated by reference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986) (plaintiff need not anticipate and plead in avoidance of a statute-of-limitations defense; complaint only fails if it pleads itself out of court)
- Tiplick v. State, 43 N.E.3d 1259 (Ind. 2015) (statutory-scheme vagueness analysis and when statutes give adequate notice)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (laws must give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited)
- Ex parte Brown, 78 N.E. 553 (Ind. 1906) (historic articulation that the law must be publicly accessible for the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat to be just)