29 N.E.3d 164
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Munoz and Woroszylo involved in a November 29, 2011 Indiana car crash; Munoz is Indiana resident, Woroszylo Illinois resident.
- Woroszylo filed a 2013 federal action in Illinois; dismissal in 2014 due to lack of personal jurisdiction over Munoz.
- Woroszylo then filed a Tippecanoe County (Indiana) state court action on April 15, 2014 alleging negligence from the same incident.
- Munoz moved to dismiss the Indiana action as untimely under the two-year statute of limitations.
- Trial court denied the motion; Munoz sought interlocutory review; Indiana Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and now affirms the denial.
- Court reviews under Rule 12(B)(6) as summary judgment, applying the Journey’s Account Statute to determine if the action was preserved or time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Journey’s Account Statute preserves Woroszylo’s Indiana action. | Woroszylo contends the Statute salvages his claim after federal dismissal. | Munoz argues the Statute does not apply due to negligence in prosecution. | Statute applies; action preserved. |
| Whether initiating a federal suit constitutes negligence in prosecution of the action under the Statute. | Not negligent; timely filing before limitations expired. | Filing in Illinois was negligent prosecution. | Not negligent under the Statute. |
| Whether the good-faith requirement is satisfied; whether bad judgment defeats preservation. | Filing in federal court showed no bad faith and was timely; not done in bad faith. | Bad judgment equates to bad faith under some views of the Statute. | Bad judgment, not bad faith; good faith not proven; preservation still applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Basham v. Penick, 849 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (statute permits continuation after dismissal on technical grounds)
- Eads v. Community Hosp., 932 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. 2010) (good-faith and negligent prosecution standards under the Statute)
- McGill v. Ling, 801 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (liberal construction of the Statute to protect diligent suitors)
- Vesolowski v. Repay, 520 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 1988) (concept of continuation after dismissals; negligence standard)
- Al-Challah v. Barger Packaging, 820 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (Statute replaces common-law remedies for post-dismissal continuation)
- Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (examples of negligent actions under the Statute)
- Ullom v. Midland Indus., Inc., 663 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Ind. 1987) (federal context cited regarding Statute and preservation)