953 N.E.2d 505
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Estate sues Patels and Indiana Insurance after Feit's death in a Lafayette motel fire; trial court grants summary judgment for Indiana Insurance on spoliation claim.
- Fire scene investigation found no confirmed smoke detector and unclear origin; responders could not conclude a cause.
- Appliances and personal property in Feit's room were removed or discarded after Indiana Insurance's investigation; room later gutted and remodeled.
- Estate's complaint alleges Indiana Insurance permitted spoliation by its insureds; original complaint did not name the Patels in a spoliation claim.
- Indiana Insurance investigators saw the room’s appliances and knew litigation could arise; no steps were taken to preserve those items.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Estate may bring a third-party spoliation claim against Indiana Insurance. | Estate argues insurer owed a duty to preserve evidence due to potential litigation. | Indiana Insurance contends no third-party spoliation duty exists absent independent tort or special relationship. | No third-party spoliation claim against Indiana Insurance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349 (Ind.2005) (first-party spoliation not recognized as independent tort)
- Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind.2006) (limits third-party spoliation as independent tort; requires independent duty/relationship)
- Murphy v. Target Products, 580 N.E.2d 687 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (no independent spoliation claim without duty; carrier duties discussed)
- Thompson v. Owensby, 704 N.E.2d 134 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (insurer–third party duty to preserve when likelihood of litigation and evidence need known)
- Amer. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Wilmoth, 893 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (no duty to preserve where no lawsuit, no possession, unclear relevance)