John W. Schoettmer & Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright & South Central Community Action Program, Inc.
2013 Ind. LEXIS 633
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Auto accident injures Schoettmer; insurer sought early settlement; later discovered Wright worked for South Central, a political subdivision under ITCA.
- Schoettmer signed a medical-release and discussed settlement with Cincinnati Insurance (South Central’s insurer) before filing suit.
- Defendants argued ITCA notice was required and not provided within 180 days; they moved for summary judgment.
- Schoettmers argued four theories: waiver, substantial compliance, agency, and estoppel.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; appellate court affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court reverses summary judgment on ITCA notice issues and remands for trial on estoppel and related defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of ITCA notice defense | Schoettmer argues South Central waived by not raising earlier | South Central amended answer; timely raising allowed | Waiver not established; amendment proper; not prejudicial |
| Substantial compliance with ITCA notice | Notice to Cincinnati Insurance suffices | Communication with insurer alone is not substantial compliance | Not substantial compliance; insurer contact insufficient |
| Agency for ITCA notice ( Cincinnati as agent) | Cincinnati Insurance as South Central’s agent for settling claim | No ITCA agency provision for insurer; no agency relation inferred | No agency for notice; insurer not agent under ITCA |
| Estoppel to assert ITCA notice defense | Equitable estoppel due to insurer representations and reliance | Insufficient clear representations; estoppel not proven as a matter of law | Genuine issues of material fact remain; estoppel may apply; remand for proof |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, 988 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2013) (strict ITCA construction; avoid traps for unwary claimants)
- Morris v. State Highway Comm’n, 528 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. 1988) (substantial compliance analysis; purpose of notice)
- Brown v. Alexander, 876 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (insufficient substantial compliance where insurer knew of accident but lacked specifics)
- Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (lack of ITCA notice despite insurer involvement)
- City of Tipton v. Baxter, 593 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (insurer’s knowledge can support substantial compliance in some contexts)
- Story Bed & Breakfast v. Brown Cnty. Area Plan Comm’n, 819 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2004) (equitable estoppel standards)
- Delaware Cnty. v. Powell, 272 Ind. 82, 393 N.E.2d 190 (1979) (evidence required for estoppel against government entities)
- Galbreath v. City of Indianapolis, 253 Ind. 472, 255 N.E.2d 225 (1970) (ITCA notice purpose; strict construction against limitations)