Benjamin S. Smith v. Franklin Township Community School Corp., 136 N.E.3d 615

On January 7, 2016 Benjamin Smith was injured when his vehicle collided with a school bus owned and operated by Franklin Township Community School Corp.
Smith sent the School an Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) notice by certified mail on March 15, 2016.
The Claims Against Public Schools Act (CAPSA) became effective July 1, 2018; CAPSA requires pre-suit written notice to public schools and provides a 15-day cure/offer period.
Smith filed a negligence complaint against the School on October 24, 2018 without providing a separate CAPSA notice. The School moved to dismiss for failure to comply with CAPSA.
The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on January 29, 2019; by then the statute of limitations had run. Smith moved under Trial Rule 41(F) to reinstate; the trial court denied reinstatement on May 9, 2019.
On appeal the court concluded CAPSA does not apply retroactively to Smith’s claim, treated ITCA notice compliance as conclusively established (the School failed to raise the issue below), reversed the denial of reinstatement, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does CAPSA apply to Smith’s pre‑CAPSA claim against a public school?	CAPSA should not apply because Smith’s claim accrued before CAPSA existed (impermissible retroactivity).	CAPSA governs all civil actions against public schools and therefore applies to Smith’s suit.	CAPSA does not apply; applying it would attach new legal consequences retroactively and there is no legislative intent to do so.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying reinstatement under Trial Rule 41(F)?	Reinstatement was warranted because dismissal based on CAPSA was improper; good cause exists.	Dismissal was proper for failure to comply with CAPSA notice and reinstatement should be denied.	Trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reinstate; remand with instruction to reinstate.
Did Smith’s ITCA notice satisfy CAPSA’s notice requirement?	Smith contends his ITCA notice sufficed to satisfy notice obligations.	School contends ITCA notice did not satisfy CAPSA and challenges its sufficiency.	Court did not decide on equivalence because CAPSA was held inapplicable; court also treated ITCA compliance as conclusively established because the School failed to contest it below.

Cloyd v. Pasternak, 791 N.E.2d 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review for motion to reinstate—abuse of discretion)
Landgraf v. USI Film Productions, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (test for whether a statute applies retroactively)
Brane v. Roth, 590 N.E.2d 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (presumption that statutes are prospective absent legislative intent)
Gosnell v. Indiana Soft Water Service, 503 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. 1987) (strong reasons required for retroactive statutory application)
Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (notice-defense under ITCA must be asserted in the defendant's answer)
State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Lake Superior Court, 820 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. 2005) (courts should not elevate form over substance when addressing preserved issues)