Michael P. Quirk v. Delaware County, Indiana and The Board of Commissioners of Delaware County, Indiana
91 N.E.3d 1008
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Michael Quirk, a Delaware County public defender, was injured in a July 1, 2011 single-vehicle crash; his blood-alcohol was .363% and he was convicted of OUI and criminal recklessness.
- Quirk submitted medical bills to the county health plan, which denied coverage under an "Illegal Acts Exclusion" unless the illegal act resulted from a physical or mental medical condition (the Mental Medical Condition Exception).
- Quirk appealed administratively but did not present evidence during the claims process that his conduct was due to a mental/physical condition; appeals were denied for that reason.
- Quirk sued Delaware County in October 2012 for breach of contract and bad faith; Delaware pleaded affirmative defenses (waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, Statute of Frauds) and moved for summary judgment in April 2016, designating evidence showing Quirk never raised the medical-condition exception during claims/appeal.
- Quirk later filed his own motion for summary judgment, for the first time submitting medical affidavits invoking the Mental Medical Condition Exception; Delaware did not file a separate response to that motion.
- The trial court first denied punitive damages and reserved the breach claim for supplemental briefing on timeliness; after briefing it granted Delaware summary judgment based on Delaware’s earlier-designated evidence and equitable defenses for Quirk’s late disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider Delaware's affirmative-defense evidence after Delaware failed to timely respond to Quirk's cross-motion for summary judgment | Quirk: T.R. 56(C) bars consideration of later-filed responsive matter; Delaware forfeited those arguments by not timely responding | Delaware: It had already moved for summary judgment first and had designated evidence showing Quirk never raised the exception during the claim/appeal process | Court: Allowed consideration of Delaware’s previously designated evidence and arguments because Delaware’s motion (filed before Quirk’s) had raised and supported those defenses |
| Whether Delaware was entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract because Quirk failed to assert the Mental Medical Condition Exception during claims/appeal | Quirk: The court should consider his newly proffered medical evidence and grant his motion | Delaware: The administrative record and its designated evidence show Quirk never notified the plan of any qualifying condition, so denial was proper | Court: Grant for Delaware — no genuine issue of material fact that Quirk failed to notify during claims/appeal; equitable defenses (waiver, laches, estoppel) bar late disclosure |
| Whether failure to respond to a summary-judgment motion automatically entitles the non-moving party to judgment | Quirk: Non-response should preclude consideration of defendant arguments and evidence raised after 30 days | Delaware: A party may designate evidence in its own motion and rely on it; re-designation not required | Court: Non-response does not automatically decide merits; court may consider designated evidence from a prior motion filed by the opponent |
| Whether trial-court procedure requiring supplemental briefing on timeliness was reversible error | Quirk: Subsequent briefing and reliance on late arguments was improper and barred by rule | Delaware: Supplemental briefing addressed an issue raised in pleadings and earlier evidence; no prejudice | Court: Even if supplemental procedure was error, it was harmless because Delaware was entitled to judgment based on its earlier-designated evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and review explained)
- City of Beech Grove v. Beloat, 50 N.E.3d 135 (Ind. 2016) (construe facts and inferences in favor of nonmovant)
- Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (failure to respond to motion for summary judgment does not entitle nonmoving party to automatic relief; merits control)
- Reiswerg v. Statom, 926 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 2010) (scope of obligation to plead affirmative defenses in response to partial summary judgment)
- Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind. 2008) (designation of evidence may occur in several ways; one party’s designation can be relied upon by the court)
- Nikou v. INB Nat. Bank, 638 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (affirming grant of summary judgment for movant who designated sufficient evidence despite cross-motion)
- Miller v. Yedlowski, 916 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (when a nonmoving party does not respond within 30 days, the court may be limited to facts established by movant)