Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Parmer
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1931
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Nationwide, as subrogee of Edward and Anne Mickel, along with the Mickels themselves, sued Parmer, Sida, Ramsey, Baers, and Thompson for negligence and trespass related to a boathouse fire allegedly caused by fireworks.
- Parmer raised nonparty fault and later sought to amend to name Baers and Thompson as nonparties.
- Baers and Thompson were dismissed as party-defendants via summary judgment; Sida and Ramsey remained in the case.
- Parmer and Thompson moved for and were granted leave to amend to name Baers and Thompson as nonparties; Sida later sought to amend to name Thompson and Baers as nonparties.
- Appellants sought interlocutory relief certifying appeals from trial court orders; the trial court certified, and Appellants sought appellate review.
- The appellate court ultimately held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Parmer-related issues and affirmed the trial court’s allowance of Sida’s amendments to name nonparties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants waived claims related to Parmer orders | Nationwide argues timely certification was required. | Parmer contends waiver due to untimely certification. | Appellants waived; no jurisdiction over Parmer issues. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in Sida's amendment to name nonparties | Sida preserved nonparty fault defense against Thompson and Baers. | Amendment improperly named previously dismissed parties. | No abuse; Sida properly preserved nonparty defense. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear Appellants' claims against Parmer | Appellants seek review of Parmer orders. | Parmer argues jurisdiction exists for interlocutory issues. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review Parmer-related claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Tatom, 546 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. 1989) (preservation of nonparty fault defense requires objection to dismissal)
- Bloemker v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 687 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 1997) (oppose dismissal or seek delay to preserve nonparty defense)
- Osterloo v. Wallar ex rel. Wallar, 758 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (recognizes nonparty defense against dismissed party even after summary judgment)
- North Willow Operating LLC v. Clay, 943 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (motion to reconsider does not toll time to file notice of appeal)