*1 320 17.2 and 17.3 and provisions of sections to find it neces if we were
Even statute, existing principalship pro the same contract this sary interpret to purpose of the obtain. result would not to re pretext decision vided protect the edu Tenure Act-to Teacher's contract. We need not address new his state-requires cational interests arguments, Joseph does not these provisions. liberal construction cogent argument or port his claims with Trustees v. Bd. School Thombleson Therefore, authority. this issue citation to 327, (1986), trans. Ind.App., 492 of Proce Ind.Rules has been waived. See interpretation is one that denied. Such dure, 8.8(A)(7). Appellate Rule sys efficiency the school advances that the trial court did not We conclude op public right as protects tem and judgment; erroneously grant summary rights. teacher's the individual posed to genuine was no issue of material there fact Township Gib School Miller v. Barton for a to resolve and the trial 510, 20 N.E.2d Ind. 215 County son correctly applied the law. has seen fit to legislature Clearly, Affirmed, appellee. costs to great deal of vest school boards deciding to renew whether discretion school's chief ad particular
contract of HOFFMAN, SHIELDS, JJ., concur. and ministrator; interpretation advances this protective is more efficiency and school right education. public that sections 10
Joseph's argument greater him the Act afford
and 10.5 of protections is likewise unavail
procedural 10.5, by plain their
ing. Sections 10 indefi apply the cancellation of wording, COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE semiper- permanent nite contracts of teachers, respectively. Joseph's (Defendant), manent Appellant cancelled; on the teaching contract was not v. contract contrary, principalship after his friend, HICKMAN, by her next renewed, accepted he a contract was not SMITH, Smith, Nancy Nancy Indi- (albeit Ridge teaching for Lake continue (Plaintiffs). vidually, Appellees protest). under No. 29A02-9006-CV-318. notice Examining language similar to the 17.3, our provision of sections 17.2 and Indiana, Appeals of Court of teacher serv permanent found that a Court District. Second orally notified of ing as who was principal 29, 1991. reassignment as classroom instructor Oct. his complain he did heard to would not be 17, Rehearing Denied Jan. the stat not receive written notice ute, question clear because non-permanent teachers. ly applied only to Township Castle-Henry School
New 131, Ind.App.
Corp. v. Hurst 835, provi trans. denied. relating the cancellation of indefi
sions apply to the teachers' contracts do not
nite principal's contract.
decision not to renew a Peru v. ex rel. City
See School
State
Youngblood
212 Ind.
Joseph argues that Lake remaining
Ridge comply failed to with the
FACTS The facts most jury's favorable to the verdict reveal 24, 1986, that on March Ra- mona, daughter, Smith's was driving Smith's car and became involved in an acci- dent. Ramona waiting was at an intersec- left, tion to turn and when the sig- traffic nal yellow, turned proceeded Ramona turn. A vehicle by Gregory driven Davis (Davis) proceeded into the intersection while the light traffic yellow struck Smith's car. Ramona slight received a contusion to head, but was uninjured. otherwise
Smith's car $1,500 received approximately in damages while Davis' car ap- received $3,000 proximately Smith was Erie, insured and Davis claimed he was also insured. purchased Smith had liability and uninsured motorist insurance for the vehicle Ramona driving, having carry chosen not to collision insurance for the vehicle involved in the accident. Erie,
Smith filed report and Erie responded that, based on report, Smith's Davis was at fault and Smith should collect from Davis' company. insurance After at- tempting to contact Davis' insurance com- pany, began to believe Davis was not Erie, insured. She contacted informing the company that Davis was not insured and that she wanted to make a claim under the uninsured motorist policy. of her report,
After Smith's initial Erie conduct- accident, ed an inter- Smith, Robert A. Michael Bishop, P. viewing Ramona, Davis and reviewing Bishop Smith Bishop, Indianapolis, & for police report of the accident. After the appellant. investigation, adjuster Erie's claim deter- Henry, John David Rynearson & Associ- mined that Ramona was at fault and had ates, Indianapolis, appellees. for accident, caused the and therefore decided that Erie was not liable for the BUCHANAN, Judge. Smith's car under policy. Erie then $2,000 Davis over CASE SUMMARY his vehicle. Defendant-appellant Erie Insurance Com- counsel, Smith obtained and Smith's (Erie) pany appeals award counsel informed Erie that Smith was seek- plaintiffs-appellees pursuant arbitration policy to Smith's (Ramona) Hickman Nancy Smith Smith's the uninsured mo- (Smith) collectively referred to [hereinafter provision. 24, 1986, torist July On Appellees]. supply counsel indicated he would the name We reverse. of an arbitrator. Smith's counsel did that is upon evidence not be allowed should September until arbitrator select mail- merely consistent with ice, fraud, oppressive period month fourteen During the Instead, is re additional ness. communication no- Erie received *3 hypoth with the quired that is inconsistent counsel, Erie's or from Smith was a result the tortious conduct esis that not to had chosen adjuster assumed fact, of honest error a mistake of law or of file. the claim closed matter and
pursue the overzealousness, negli mere judgment, arbitrator named an counsel After Smith's human noniniquitous gence or some other 1987, reopened the Erie September of pu that failing. The court also concluded contact to reestablish unable file but was upon damages are recoverable nitive repeated efforts. Davis after with convincing evidence. by clear and proof Erie on brought suit Appellees Exterminating v. Traina In Co. Orkin 1988, seeking compensatory 18, March Ind., supreme the dam- injury and the damages for Ramona's evidence further on the expanded court car, punitive as well ages to Smith's damages punitive needed to sustain handling of the matter. damages for Erie's explained: The court award. com- trial, received jury After in a criminal as the defendant "Just punitive of pensatory $85.75 of presumption is cloaked with action com- $1,000. received damages of puni- defendant, innocence, in a claim damages of the pensatory the damages, is cloaked with punitive $10,000. damages of tive actions, though tor- his presumption that noniniquitous tious, nevertheless ISSUE guilty failings, le. that he is not human punitive the award Whether it oth- alleged. Were quasi-crime of erwise, evidence? by sufficient supported upon no restraint there would be damages upon punitive the award DECISION conflicting inferences." PARTIES CONTENTIONS-Erie (second supplied). emphasis at 1023 sufficiently not conduct was argues that its pu imposition to warrant egregious need supreme court reaffirmed The reply that Appellees damages. supra: Wolf, nitive in Bud evidence for additional Erie acted demonstrates the evidence punitive that "We stated Travelers] [in correctly grant that the faith and bad may al actions be damages in contract damages. punitive ed malice, proving upon lowable punitive oppressive fraud, award or CONCLUSION-The evi accompanied ness improper. damages was if dence 'inconsistent the evi sufficiency of reviewing the In the result conduct was the tortious punitive dam award of an dence error or honest mistake of law of a reweigh the ages, not we will overzealousness, neg mere judgment, credibility of the witnesses. reassess ligence or other damages will be punitive imposition of Travelers, at 362." failing.' probative evi if, considering the affirmed (emphasis supra at 137 arising Wolf, inferences Bud and the reasonable dence plied). could therefrom, trier of fact a reasonable proven damages were such
conclude that standards, supreme court's Applying convincing evidence. Bud by clear and support the award in order to Chevrolet, Robertson Inc. v. must contain damages, Wolf the record Ind., Erie's ac- infer could from which be must also and there tortious tions were Indem. court in Travelers Our pos- excludes Ind., 442 N.E.2d additional Armstrong v.Co. tortious conduct sibility that the determined law, support puni human fail- matter of "noniniquitous award result of some therefore consider the evidence ing." We tive trial, it, weighing without admitted at any search for evidence which is Our rigorous supreme determine whether theory inconsistent with a that Erie's standard has been met. agents merely neg- made mistakes or acted re Appellees assert the record "is unavailing. Any probative ligently is evi- alleging plete references to conduct would sufficient dence be because we will faith,'" Appellees' at 6. Smith 'bad reweigh the evidence. As the evidence Brief uncooperative in testified that Erie was inferences, supports conflicting pre handling of her and that Erie had actions, sumption that Erie's tor- cancelled her insurance in late claim *4 tious, noniniquitous were the result of hu premiums, her pay she had failed to failings, man mandates a conclusion that premiu while she asserted she had insufficient, the evidence is as a matter of Appellees point ms.1 The also to the fact law, support punitive damages. See Or claim, pay that Erie refused to their but kin, supra. $2000, paid Davis even he had no substantially The situation we consider is Appellees insurance and the claimed he similar to that considered this court in was at fault. Group Miller v. Farmers Ins. Ind. could, arguably, sup- While this evidence App., 560 N.E.2d which dealt with an Erie port a determination that acted with appeal entry summary judg from of malice, fraud, oppres- or against plaintiff's ment a claim for siveness, is the evidence also consistent The evidence established that hypothesis a Erie's actions were with that plaintiff in an was involved accident fact, negligent the result of a of mistake and had filed a claim with his insurance handling of Smith's reviewing plaintiff's carrier. After re- or that Erie's overzea- port, the carrier indicated it believed supreme lous in their actions. As the court plaintiff was not at fault. After further supra, in there Wolf, stated Bud must be however, investigation, the carrier deter- in- evidence inconsistent with the plaintiff more than mined that was ference that the conduct was the result of therefore, fifty percent at fault and noniniquitous failing. human Con- some policy, the terms of his the carrier was not Orkin, flicting enough. inferences are not plaintiff's damage. The trial Hable for the supra. granted company's the insurance mo- court Appellees' claim that Erie's in summary judgment, plain- and the tion Davis' difference to insurance status appealed. tiff ports punitive damages the award of is concluded: This court mistaken that the based on Smith's belief exemplifies the case the ex- ""Webelieve uninsured motorist of her insur act situation and distinction that Arm- policy covered to her vehicle ance sought upon.... to focus There strong in if the driver of her vehicle was at fault that is is no evidence inconsistent with an uninsured motorist. accident conduct, hypothesis that the insurer's policy provided Erie that would all, merely the if tortious at was not any the insured for accident if the cover overzealousness, negligence, result of insured was more than at fault. 50% no clear and con- ete. there was at 597. If Ramona was more than Record vincing evidence to fault, then, pursuant policy, at to the 50% punitive damages." if damage would not be covered even Miller, origi (emphasis at 1263 supra Davis were uninsured. Davis' insurance nal). status, after Erie determined Ramona was entry Although involved the of Miller fault, at was therefore not relevant cannot, analysis of the le- summary judgment, its payment Erie's to Davis alone as a wrongful insurance. 1. No claim was made for cancelation of the result identical conduct was facts almost the tortious sufficiency of gal error or honest a mistake of law persuasive. is consider we those over-zealousness, neg- mere judgment, compa- also record is in the hu- other such ligence or by the considered to the rable failing. man In Armstrong, supra. court supreme at 362. Id. concluded court
Armstrong, evidentiary standard heightened This was consistent although the intent, however, not, permit it this fraudulent does hypothesis awith that of the judgment for substitute support an insufficient nonetheless case. in this damages because award of required hy- proof is standard of Whatever not inconsistent at honest, level, error. human said that if it can be pothesis at the trial can reason- conclusions be either of two Likewise, the evidence while evidence, it is imma- fraudulent, ably drawn from perhaps establish Erie could terial, one of such con- upon appeal, that intent, it is not also iniquitous some other likely more than honest, appears to be clusions inconsistent with find- other, by the and we are bound quantum The additional error. *5 the trier of fact. ing of supreme court is by the required Co., v. Traina here. Exterminating present Inc. simply not Orkin Ind., (1986), record, of the careful review on a Based supreme court observed: our principle the deference to giving due em- Traina and Travelers both While evidence, we reweigh the not will that we convine- for "clear and phasize the need not record does the must conclude cer- approach the tending to ing" proof Arm- damages. See punitive an award convictions, in criminal tainty required Miller, supra. supra; strong, for suf- appellate review the standard for and remanded reversed Judgment punitive the issue of ficiency on herewith. consistent proceedings further greater judicial impose neither should jury de- scrutiny lesser deference nor SHIELDS, J., concurs. suf- in of other than review terminations ficiency questions. J., opinion. STATON, dissents Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson Bud Wolf dissenting. STATON, Judge, Ind., N.E.2d 519 Majori- the dissent. While respectfully I in "is Travelers pronounced rule The supreme court's to our lip service ty pays applicable the rule nothing more than for of review the standard enunciation upon cireum- resting entirely trials criminal award, challenge to a the must evidence, ie. the stantial standard and disregards the it nonetheless in hypothesis of every reasonable exclude reweighing selective engages Orkin, 1023. How supra, at nocence." evidence. determin ever, review for standard of the In upon Travelers in a criminal Majority relies sufficiency The of the evidence Ind., the conviction is the same whether Armstrong case is v. dem. Co. evi circumstantial by direct or supported our where reweigh dence; convincing evidence we do adopted the clear Rather, proof of credibility standard for of witnesses. judge the stated: favorable in Travelers most The court to the evidence we look inferences and to all reasonable verdict allow- should not be [Plunitive Robey v. State therefrom. drawn to be is consist- upon evidence able 145, 149. We must Ind., malice, fraud, hypothesis of ent with if there is evidence judgment affirm oppressiveness. negligence or a reasonable value from probative required should be some evidence Rather beyond a guilt could infer of fact trier is inconsistent Telephone at Indiana Bell sufficiency to and from work doubt. reasonable no differ- punitive damages design engineer. is installation Company for standard her car three months without She drove ent. being insured she had even jury Majority concludes that premiums Company to Erie Insurance the actions of have inferred that could not Compa- coverage. Though Erie Insurance inconsistent with agents Erie and checks, it ny premium cashed her concealed evi- behavior. policy from the cancellation of Smith's finding. contrary supports dence agent. and her insurance from the have concluded Could pur- deceptive that a scheme Eventually, legal had to obtain up a mistake of employed to cover posely Erie Insurance to act on counsel to force Or, employee? adjuster an Erie or fellow Arbitration was de- her insurance claim. concluded from could the have months, but Erie Insur- layed for fourteen pay Erie had decided not to evidence that anything expedite did not ance do it had: regardless since its insured's claim of its insured. Rather arbitration $2,000.00 1) to Davis mis- already paid pending it dispose of the small than for the claim take which was reserve inquiry. closed the file without 2) property claim was jury heard this evidence and the When the bring legal probably too small for her testimony regarding the secant subjective action Erie? Since Insurance, by Erie of the claim made is the real mind of Erie's state of that there was jury could have concluded issue, and ad- it is the evidence introduced subjec- convincing evidence of the clear and trial that must be mitted in evidence at up of mind to cover a mistaken tive state questions. answer these reviewed to ig- payment of to Davis and to *6 evidence: After the heard this small insurance nore Smith's valid but intersection, contact- collision at have considered that claim. The could Insurance, company, Erie her insurance ed long late. years later was too and too four information about the gave them the Majority states: informed her that accident. Erie Insurance could, arguably, coverage. While this had uninsured motorist she by informed Erie that was further She that Erie acted support a determination Davis, driver, was at fault and the other malice, fraud, gross negligence or com- contact his insurance that she should is also con- oppressiveness, the evidence attempts to contact repeated After pany. ac- hypothesis that Erie's sistent with a company, finally she con- Davis' insurance a mistake of the result of tions were her agent insurance who advised tacted his handling investigation and negligent insured since De- Davis had not been or that Erie's cember, accident occurred 1985. actions. in their overzealous Later, Smith contacted March At her at Erie Insurance to advise Nola Nooe acknowledges that Majority refused was uninsured. Nooe that Davis reason- can be "either of two conclusions in- status and accept Davis' uninsured evidence," in re- but ably drawn from the insured. Smith re- that Davis was sisted finding fusing to be "bound cooperation from Erie Insurance ceived no fact," However, clear man- ignored the trier of has her claim. regarding Orkin, supra, meantime, Erie had Davis supreme court. date of the damage to his car. for the judgment I affirm at 1022. would the trial court. Later, that a further Smith was advised had indi-
investigation by Erie Insurance her fault and that
cated that she was at having months denied. Four claim was accident, had to
passed since repair
obtain a loan transportation she would have
car so that