990 N.E.2d 972
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Graves, a cardiologist, had his Clarian/IU Health cardiology privileges revoked on August 1, 2009.
- Graves alleged Kovacs and Ross helped revoke privileges by providing false information and improper peer-review handling.
- MOB sued Graves for breach of lease; Graves counterclaimed against Clarian/IU Health for breach of contract and lost income related to privilege termination.
- Graves filed a second amended complaint on March 7, 2012 naming Kovacs and Ross and asserting tortious interference with Clarian/IU Health’s contract with Graves and related privilege termination claims.
- Kovacs and Ross moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Graves failed to state a contract claim against them; they also argued statute of limitations defendable defenses were involved.
- The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings; Graves appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the tortious interference claim and procedural issues regarding limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graves stated a tortious interference claim against Kovacs and Ross | Graves alleged Kovacs and Ross knowingly induced the breach of contract with Clarian/IU Health. | Kovacs and Ross were not parties to Graves's contract; no actionable interference claim stated. | Yes; second amended complaint stated a tortious interference claim against Kovacs and Ross. |
| Whether the captioning of the count as 'Breach of Contract' forecloses tortious interference claim | Captioning error should not defeat a properly alleged interference claim. | Captioning could mislead and bar recognition of tort claim. | Captioning alone did not bar the tortious interference claim. |
| Whether the tortious interference claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations | Claim relates to conduct during 1995 and 2006-07 and could be timely; amendments relate back. | Two-year statute of limitations applies; second amended complaint filed March 7, 2012 is untimely. | Premature to decide; remanded to address statute of limitations on remand. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings given notice pleading standards | Complaints need only allege operative facts; pleadings should be construed in Graves's favor. | If no claim stated, judgment on pleadings appropriate. | Judgment on pleadings reversed; pleadings sufficient to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bragg v. City of Muncie, 930 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of tortious interference with a contract)
- Daniels v. USS Agri-Chemicals, 965 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1992) (erroneous legal theory citation not fatal to pleadings; gravamen controls)
- State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228, 294 N.E.2d 604 (1973) (notice pleading and liberal pleading standards; methods to clarify theories)
- Shields v. Taylor, 976 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (pleadings should be construed by content; not form)
- Campbell v. Eckman/Freeman & Associates, 670 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (construction of pleadings under notice-pleading rules)
- McCall v. State of Indiana Dept. of Nat. Res. Div. of Forestry, 821 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (12(B)(6) dismissal; pleading sufficiency standards)
- LBM Realty, LLC v. Mannia, 981 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (exhibits attached to pleadings form part of pleadings)