Indiana Department of Insurance v. Everhart
2012 Ind. LEXIS 10
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Robin Everhart sued the Indiana PCF to recover excess damages after settling wrongful death claims against Perkins/Standard Forwarding and Dr. Clarke.
- Trial court awarded the full statutory maximum excess damages ($1 million) without reducing for Everhart's preexisting risk of death or for settlements.
- PCF asked for a 20% reduction for the chance of death even absent negligence and for set-offs from settlements with other defendants.
- Trial court found Everhart’s injuries exceeded $3.15 million and declined to apply Mayhue/Cahoon reductions; Court of Appeals reversed.
- Court grants transfer; issue becomes whether Cahoon/Mayhue damages or set-off rules apply to a better-than-even case involving joint tortfeasors.
- Court ultimately affirms the trial court, holding PCF not entitled to the requested set-offs and that the result aligns with the one-satisfaction doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cahoon loss-of-damages applies to better-than-even cases | PCF: damages should be proportional to increased risk. | Everhart: extend Cahoon to better-than-even cases; Mayhue controls. | Not decided; inappropriate vehicle to extend Cahoon |
| Whether set-offs under Manns/Palmer reduce PCF liability | PCF entitled to set-offs for settlements with others. | Set-offs should reduce damages; joint tortfeasor settlements apply. | PCF not entitled to set-off; one-satisfaction doctrine prevents windfall |
| How joint tortfeasors and the Comparative Fault Act affect damages | Removal of joint-and-several liability requires proportional damages. | Medical malpractice claims may be exempt from the Act; joint liability still applicable. | Discussed but not decisive; Mayhue/Cahoon considerations not required here |
| Whether the Mayhue line logic governs this case | Mayhue would require proportional damages for loss of chance. | Mayhue does not control because there was an indivisible harm from joint tortfeasors. | Mayhue not controlling; case distinguished by indivisible harm |
| Whether the trial court’s overall damages award complied with the statutory cap | Total injuries exceed cap; must adjust for preexisting risk and settlements. | Cap should be applied after proper reductions; settlements offset damages. | Affirmed; PCF liable for $1,000,000 excess damages; no further reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000) (damages proportional to increased risk under Mayhue framework)
- Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384 (Ind. 1995) (loss-of-chance doctrine for fifty-percent-or-worse survival chances)
- Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., 864 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (one-satisfaction/set-off rules for joint tortfeasors)
- Huffman v. Monroe County Cmty. Sch. Corp., 588 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 1992) (abrogated release rule; set-off/deduction for prior settlements)
- Manns v. Indiana Dep't of Highways, 541 N.E.2d 929 (Ind. 1989) (one-satisfaction doctrine and set-offs for joint tortfeasors outside the Act)
- Mendenhall v. Skinner & Broadbent Co., 728 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2000) (comparative fault act implications on set-offs)