107 N.E.3d 1103
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Cynthia Morrison sued multiple medical providers for malpractice arising from care, procedures, and the death of Ernest Morrison; complaint filed in Marion County on December 20, 2017.
- Defendants (including Dr. Vasquez and Vascular Center & Vein Clinic of Southern Indiana) moved to transfer venue to Monroe County under Ind. Trial Rule 75(A), arguing most defendants, care, witnesses, and the decedent’s death were connected to Monroe County.
- Morrison objected, asserting Marion County was a preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(4) because Bloomington Hospital’s registered agent/address was in Marion County, relying on Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
- After the Indiana corporation law was amended effective January 1, 2018, the legislature added Ind. Code § 23-0.5-4-12, which provides that the address of a registered agent does not determine venue.
- The trial court granted transfer to Monroe County on February 19, 2018; Morrison appealed the transfer order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marion County is a preferred venue under T.R. 75(A)(4) because Bloomington Hospital’s registered agent/address is in Marion County | Morrison: Am. Family means a corporation’s registered office/agent in a county can establish venue under (A)(4) | Appellees: Am. Family applies to foreign corporations without Indiana offices; after Jan. 1, 2018 the new statute bars using an agent’s address to fix venue | Held: No — under I.C. § 23-0.5-4-12 the agent’s address does not determine venue, so Marion is not a preferred venue on that basis. |
| Whether Ind. Code § 23-0.5-4-12 applies despite complaint being filed before its effective date | Morrison: Section should not apply retroactively; venue is fixed when complaint filed Dec 20, 2017 | Appellees: Statute is procedural/remedial and applies to pending cases; alternatively it governs because motion and order occurred after effective date | Held: Statute is procedural/remedial and applies here (motion and transfer occurred after Jan 1, 2018); no deprivation of substantive rights. |
| Whether Trial Rule 75(D) makes the statute ineffective if it conflicts with Trial Rule 75 | Morrison: Rule 75(D) invalidates statutes that impose more stringent venue rules than the rule | Appellees: § 23-0.5-4-12 does not impose more stringent venue rules; it clarifies that registered-agent address is not controlling | Held: § 23-0.5-4-12 does not conflict with or impose more stringent rules than T.R. 75 and is not ineffective under T.R. 75(D). |
| Whether transfer to Monroe County was required because Marion was not a preferred venue | Morrison: Preferred venue exists in Marion under Am. Family and complaint-date venue rule | Appellees: Monroe is a preferred venue under T.R. 75(A)(1) (greater percentage of individual defendants) and facts/witnesses tie to Monroe | Held: Transfer to Monroe was required and the trial court’s transfer order is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. 2006) (held a corporation’s registered office in Indiana could be treated as its principal office for venue under Rule 75(A)(4) under prior corporation law)
- Arkla Indus., Inc. v. Columbia St. Partners, Inc., 95 N.E.3d 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review and principles for transfer under Trial Rule 75)
- CTB, Inc. v. Tunis, 95 N.E.3d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (applied Am. Family to conclude venue belongs where corporation’s principal office is shown)
- Randolph Cty. v. Chamness, 879 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 2008) (explains purpose and benefits of preferred venue rules)