Warrick County ex rel. Conner v. Hill
973 N.E.2d 1138
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Warrick County challenged denial of its summary judgment on ITCA notice, six-year statute of limitations, and release-agreement grounds.
- Hills alleged Warrick County eliminated a drainage ditch causing ongoing water problems and later structural damage to the home.
- In 2002 Warrick County contracted MCF to install downspout lines and sump pump, disconnecting previous drainage.
- Hills signed a 2002 Release Agreement releasing Warrick County from claims related to drainage issues but arguing it did not cover later structural damage.
- Experts in 2007-2008 linked moisture and foundation problems to removal of the open ditch and groundwater changes.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on all three ITCA/limitations grounds and release interpretation; interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ITCA notice timeliness | Hills timely filed within 180 days of discovery of injury. | Ongoing 2002 problems link to 2002 notice, outside 180 days. | No error; timing proper under ITCA. |
| Six-year statute of limitations | Discovery in 2007-2007; action timely under 34-11-2-7. | Injuries predate discovery, triggering earlier accrual. | No error; accrual tied to discovery of structural damage in 2007. |
| Discovery rule applicability | Some damage ascertainable before 2007 supports tolling. | No ascertainable structural damage prior to 2007. | No error; discovery rule properly applied. |
| Release Agreement scope | Release did not contemplate later structural damage from changed groundwater. | Release broadly covers damages from drainage interference. | No error; release language ambiguous but resolved against drafter; no waiver of later damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeder v. Harper, 788 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind.2003) (summary judgment standard; material facts)
- Huntington v. Riggs, 862 N.E.2d 1263 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (review of designated material; light in favor of non-movant)
- Hupp v. Hill, 576 N.E.2d 1320 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (ITCA notice as procedural prerequisite)
- Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind.2009) (accrual when injury and cause are known)
- Farmers Elevator Co. of Oakville, Inc. v. Hamilton, 926 N.E.2d 68 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (accrual and discovery in Indiana)
- Perryman v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 688 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (contract interpretation; ambiguity in context)
- MPACT Const. Group, LLC v. Superior Concrete Constructors, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 901 (Ind.2004) (ambiguity construed against drafter)
- Capital Drywall Supply, Inc. v. Jai Jagdish, Inc., 934 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (contract construction principles; summary judgment)