History
  • No items yet
midpage
101 N.E.3d 850
Ind. Ct. App.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • On June 20, 2014 Pamela Webb fell when the bottom bleacher step at the Monon Community Center slid; she sued for negligence.
  • The Corporation (Carmel Clay Parks Building Corporation) is the recorded owner of the property; the Carmel/Clay Board of Parks & Recreation (Park Board) had management/operation rights under a Sublease/Management Agreement and Interlocal Agreement.
  • Webb served a Tort Claim Notice on the City of Carmel on July 7, 2014; Carmel later informed Webb (June 2016) that it did not own or operate the facility and produced documents identifying the Corporation as owner and the Park Board as manager.
  • Webb filed her original complaint against Carmel on May 25, 2016 and obtained leave to file an amended complaint naming the Corporation and Park Board on December 30, 2016; neither the Corporation nor the Park Board were served within the two‑year statute of limitations.
  • Defendants moved to strike portions of Webb’s summary‑judgment response and for summary judgment; the trial court struck several unsupported assertions and granted summary judgment to Carmel, the Corporation, and the Park Board.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Whether the trial court abused discretion by striking portions of Webb’s response Webb: struck statements were factual or reasonably inferable from documents and should have been considered Defs: the statements lacked admissible evidentiary support and contradicted designated evidence Court: No abuse; struck unsupported/contradicted assertions under T.R. 56(E)
2. Whether amended complaint relates back to original complaint under T.R. 15(C) for Corp./Park Board Webb: Amended complaint added identically pleaded claims and the Corp./Park Board had notice (via Carmel/insurer/shared counsel) so amendment relates back Defs: Corp./Park Board lacked actual or imputed notice within 120 days and were not parties during that period Court: No relation back; Webb failed to show notice within 120 days, so claims against Corp./Park Board time‑barred
3. Whether Carmel owned/operated the property (liability exposure) Webb: Disputed characterization; argued Carmel’s handling of the Tort Claim and later insurer appearances showed ownership/operation or at least a genuine fact issue Carmel: Designated lease/option, interlocal and sublease/management agreements and affidavit showing Corp. owned and Park Board operated the facility Court: Carmel met prima facie showing it did not own/operate; Webb failed to designate admissible evidence creating a factual dispute; summary judgment for Carmel affirmed
4. Whether sharing counsel or insurer appearances supports imputing notice for relation‑back Webb: Travelers’ involvement and later counsel appearances show notice and identity of interest Defs: No evidence parties shared counsel or insurer involvement during the statutorily required 120‑day window Court: Imputation not warranted; later shared counsel appearance (post‑120 days) insufficient

Key Cases Cited

  • Morris v. Crain, 71 N.E.3d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility and motions to strike affidavits)
  • Reed v. City of Evansville, 956 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (T.R. 56(E) requires affidavits be based on personal knowledge and admissible evidence)
  • Abbott v. Bates, 670 N.E.2d 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (nonmovant may not rely on pleadings to defeat summary judgment)
  • FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
  • Raisor v. Jimmie’s Raceway Pub., Inc., 946 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (relation‑back under T.R. 15(C) explained)
  • Porter Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t v. Guzorek, 857 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. 2006) (notice for relation‑back may be actual or constructive; identity of interest or shared counsel can support imputation)
  • Brown v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 85 N.E.3d 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (onus is on claimant to sue proper party within statute of limitations)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Pamela Webb v. City of Carmel, Carmel Clay Parks Building Corporation, and Carmel/Clay Board of Parks & Recreation
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 30, 2018
Citations: 101 N.E.3d 850; 29A05-1710-CT-2420
Docket Number: 29A05-1710-CT-2420
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
Log In
    Pamela Webb v. City of Carmel, Carmel Clay Parks Building Corporation, and Carmel/Clay Board of Parks & Recreation, 101 N.E.3d 850