Bradley K. Buchanan v. Tina Fox (mem. dec.), 67A01-1704-PL-861

Buchanan and Fox lived together from 2004–2007; Fox later spoke to Indiana State Police about Buchanan during an insurance-fraud investigation.
Fox told Sargent Stockton (and later Detective Gulinson) that Buchanan once said two handguns he bought might be "hot"; she disclaimed knowledge that the guns were stolen or illegal.
Detective Gulinson relied on a source who had lived with Buchanan when applying for a search warrant alleging stolen guns and insurance-fraud evidence; separate affidavit sought an arrest warrant on insurance-fraud charges.
Police executed warrants in November 2009, seized numerous firearms and documents, and arrested Buchanan; he later pled guilty to one theft-related felony (insurance fraud).
Buchanan sued multiple parties including Fox, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Fox moved for summary judgment asserting a qualified privilege for reports to law enforcement.
The trial court struck portions of Buchanan’s affidavit as inadmissible opinion/conclusory testimony, granted Fox’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Buchanan’s motion to correct error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by striking portions of Buchanan's affidavit	Buchanan: statements about Fox's motives and veracity are based on his personal knowledge and relationship with Fox, so admissible	Fox: the contested statements are conclusory opinion and lack factual predicates under T.R. 56(E) and Evid. R. 701	Court: no abuse of discretion; struck statements were inadmissible opinion/conclusory testimony
Whether summary judgment for Fox on malicious prosecution/abuse of process was erroneous	Buchanan: Fox lost the qualified privilege because she acted from ill will and without grounds for belief	Fox: communications to police are protected by the qualified (public interest) privilege; Buchanan designated no admissible evidence to dispute abuse of privilege	Court: affirmed summary judgment for Fox; Buchanan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to defeat privilege (and malicious prosecution independently fails because prosecutor instituted charges)

Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007) (qualified/public interest privilege protects communications to law enforcement)
Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1992) (explains limits of qualified privilege and abuse exceptions)
Whitlock v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., 35 N.E.3d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (requirements for admissible lay opinion under Evid. R. 701)
Ackles v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Corp., 699 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (opinion testimony must show factual basis sufficient for court to find rationally based on perceptions)
Bah v. Mac’s Convenience Stores, LLC, 37 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (framework for when privileged statements lose protection)
Yoost v. Zalcberg, 925 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statute of limitations defense to abuse of process claim)