113 N.E.3d 693
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Feb. 18, 2016 Nolan Clayton (driver) and Gregory Smith (passenger) crashed after drinking; Smith became quadriplegic. Both had high BACs; Clayton pleaded guilty to DWI.
- Smith sued Clayton for negligence (compensatory and punitive damages). Insurers (Progressive, Allstate, Erie) were involved; a declaratory-coverage action was pending.
- At trial the jury found Clayton 60% at fault, Smith 35%, non-party Stacked Pickle 5%, and awarded $35,000,000 in damages (Clayton’s share $21,000,000). No punitive damages awarded.
- The trial court added prejudgment interest ($714,574.35) and denied Clayton’s motions to exclude certain evidence and experts; Clayton sought post-verdict setoffs for insurer payments but the court declined contemporaneous reduction pending resolution of the declaratory action.
- Clayton appealed arguing: (1) erroneous evidentiary rulings about prior conduct, (2) improper admission of three expert/skilled witnesses, (3) prejudgment interest was improper, and (4) entitlement to post-verdict credit for insurer advance payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-conduct/criminal-history evidence | Smith argued his convictions were irrelevant and properly excluded; jury still heard both parties’ uncharged drinking conduct. | Clayton argued Smith's convictions were relevant to state of mind, habit, causation, and damages and exclusion was unfair given evidence of Clayton's prior misconduct. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Smith's convictions were not relevant to compensatory damages or to apportionment here; jury already heard evidence both drank and had driven intoxicated. |
| Expert/skilled witness testimony (vocational economist, medical expert, life-care planner) | Smith maintained witnesses were qualified; testimony helpful to jury on damages, prognosis, and costs. | Clayton attacked foundations, methodology, and need for an economist to support life-care cost present-value calculations. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Gatekeeping satisfied; challenges went to weight, not admissibility. Jury could evaluate methodology and credibility. |
| Prejudgment interest under TPIS (Indiana Code ch. 34-51-4) | Smith argued he timely served a written settlement demand on defendant’s counsel, satisfying TPIS prerequisite. | Clayton argued demand was not properly made to Progressive/defense counsel representing him at relevant times, so TPIS inapplicable. | Court: Held TPIS applied. Smith’s time‑limited demand to counsel of record for Clayton satisfied statutory prerequisite; prejudgment interest award affirmed. |
| Post-verdict credit for advance payments (Ind. Code ch. 34-44-2) | Smith argued reductions premature while declaratory-coverage action unresolved; disputed nature/party of payments. | Clayton sought immediate $5,000 credit for Progressive’s medical payment and offset for Allstate settlement as advance payments. | Court: No contemporaneous reduction required. Advance-payment statute applies only to payments by defendant or defendant’s insurer; here insurer duty was unresolved and no evidentiary showing was made at post-trial hearing, so verdict was not reduced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Pappas, 73 N.E.3d 700 (Ind. 2017) (prior alcohol-related convictions generally irrelevant to compensatory damages; relevant limited to punitive damages)
- Lindley v. Oppegaard, 275 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 1971) (similar-act evidence may illuminate state of mind)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (factors for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. 2005) (advance-payment statute requires insurer/defendant payment and burden to show judgment included advanced amounts)
- Nealy v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 910 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (definition and treatment of advance payments in personal-injury cases)
- Estate of Borgwald v. Old Nat'l Bank, 12 N.E.3d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (credibility and weight of expert testimony are for the trier of fact)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (expert testimony admissibility and post-admissibility attack on accuracy)
- Griffin v. Acker, 659 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (present value evidence may assist jury but is not essential to damages assessment)