State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management, LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana
18 N.E.3d 1006
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- State Farm sought relief from a $14.5 million defamation verdict against Radcliff/CPM under TR60(B); the trial court denied relief.
- The defamation verdict arose from Radcliff/CPM's involvement after the 2006 Good Friday hailstorm and related communications reviewed by the NICB and in the context of State Farm's investigation.
- Appellate history includes State Farm I affirming the defamation judgment and remanding for 60(B) proceedings; after remand the trial court treated the motion under 60(B) and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.
- State Farm filed affidavits from Richards and Mulligan alleging fraud on the court; the trial court denied relief and State Farm sought stays pending appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed denial, holding no abuse of discretion in treating the motion as 60(B)(3) with due diligence considerations and no error in denying further discovery or a hearing under 60(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TR60(B)(3) fraud-on-the-court vs TR60(B)(2) new-evidence governs. | State Farm argues 60(B)(3) applies. | Radcliff contends the motion is 60(B)(2) and required due diligence. | Trial court did not err in addressing fraud-on-the-court grounds; due diligence considerations applied. |
| Whether the denial of TR60(B) relief on the merits was an abuse of discretion. | State Farm claims sufficient fraud evidence to warrant relief. | Radcliff argues no proven unconscionable plan; evidence was not newly unavailable. | No abuse; movant failed to show fraud so as to vacate the judgment. |
| Whether denial of further discovery/hearing under TR60(D) was proper. | State Farm sought a hearing and additional discovery. | Radcliff argues court had enough information; Judge Nation did not err. | Court did not abuse discretion; no mandatory hearing or discovery required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Radcliff, 987 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (defamation appellate review of 60(B) issues; prior decision cited specially)
- Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. 2006) (fraud-on-the-court relief and due diligence considerations)
- Shepherd v. Truex, 823 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (limits on 60(B)(3) relief when movant could have challenged issues earlier)
- Natare Corp. v. Cardinal Accounts, Inc., 874 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discovery and evidence considerations in 60(B) proceedings)
- Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 976 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (diligence in presenting new evidence for 60(B) relief)