Harris v. A.C. & S., Inc.

person A responsible is for the actions you unless find beyond a reasonable when, person, another either before doubt that the Defendant knowingly or or during crime, the commission of a he intentionally participated in some con- aids, knowingly induces, or causes the duct of an affirmative nature. person

other to commit a crime. To aid Record at 1838. These two instructions is to knowingly support, help, or assist were a correct statement of law and did in the commission of a crime. not mislead the jury. The trial court did In order to be held responsible for the not err in the it gave instructions to the another, jury. actions of he need only have knowledge that he is helping the com- The defendant's convictions are af- mission of a crime. He does not have to firmed. personally participate in the crime nor does he have to present when the SHEPARD, C.J., SULLIVAN, crime is committed. BOEHM, RUCKER, JJ., concur. Proof of the defendant's failure to op- pose the crime, commission of a compan-

ionship person with the committing the

offense, and conduct before and after may offense be considered in deter-

mining whether aiding may be inferred.

Record at 182. Even though this in struction states that the defendant must HARRIS, Willie L. Jr., al., et have "knowledge that he is helping in the Appellants-Plaintiffs, crime," commission of a the defendant contends that this instruction "improperly the jury's

focus[ed] attention upon [the S., INC., A.C. & North American Refrac- perceived defendant's] acquiescence to Co., tories Group, Mallinckrodt Inc., the crimes being committed others." Engineering Combustion Co., Kaiser Br. for Appellant at 28. The jury must Aluminum & Corp., Chemical WTI be instructed that accomplice liability re Holdings, Inc., Rust Rapid-American quires proof that the defendant engaged Corp., Co., Weil-McLain W.R. Grace in voluntary conduct in concert with his Co-Conn, Appellees-Defendants. accomplice. State, Small v. No. 45A03-0004-CV-144. (Ind.1988). Final Instruction 15D made explicit: this Court of Appeals of Indiana. presence mere of a Defendant Jan.

where a being committed, crime is even coupled with knowledge by the Defen-

dant that a erime being committed, or

the mere acquiescence by a Defendant others, criminal conduct of even guilty knowledge, is not sufficient aiding, establish inducing, or causing

a crime.

You must not convict the Defendant of

aiding, inducing, causing an offense & Berger James Berger,

Donald J. Bend, IN, Robert G. Gammage, South Eves, Pablo A. Penney, R. McCoy, Mark Offices, Ltd., Chica- Law Vaughan Caseino Appellant. IL, Attorneys for go, George Ruth- Laudig Sipes, W. Russell IN, Attorney Indianapolis, Sipes, & erford Amicus Curiae. Dillman, M. Lisa Mehringer, E. Susan IN, David Indianapolis, Wagner, Lewis & Kramer, Buoscio, Merrili- Pera, Pera & W. Shuftan, M. Kenneth ville, IN, L. Robert Wildman, Har- Tate, L. Gorenberg, Carol IL, Dixon, Chicago, James rold, Allen & IN, Ac- Amber Indianapolis, Boyers, M. hilles, IN, Chicago, Attorneys for A.C. & favor of the following corporations: A.C. & S. and North American Refractories. ("A.C. S., S."), Inc. North American Refractories Company ("NARCO"), Mal- Lee, Christopher D. Barsumian, Todd C. linckrodt Group, Inc. ("Mallinckrodt"), Kahn, Dees, Kahn, LLP, Donovan & Ev- ("Combus Combustion Engineering Co. ansville, IN, Atorneys for Mallinckrodt tion"), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. Group, Inc. and Combustion Engineering ("Kaiser"), WTI Rust Holdings, Inc. Company. ("WTI"), Rapid-American Corp. ("Rapid, Robert E. Haley, Harrold, Wildman Al- American"), ("Weil- Weil-MecLain Co. Dixon, len & Chicago, IL, Attorney for McLain"), and W.R. Grace & Co Conn. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. ("W.R. Grace")1 Conover, Garrett V. Kopka, Landau & We reverse and remand. Pinkus, Point, IN, Crown Attorney for WTI Rust Holdings. ISSUES Douglas King, B. Wooden McLaughlin Sterner, Whether the Nopperts Indianapolis, IN, are collater- Attorney for ally

Rapid-American estopped from Corp. relitigating the statute of repose issue Jonathan Lively, M. Jason Kennedy, L. remaining defendants after this Segal McCambridge Singer, & Mahoney, upheld court the trial court's entry Ltd., IL, Chicago, Attorneys for Weil- of summary judgment in favor of McClain. ' Sears ("Sears") Roebuck & Co. Dinsmore, Mark J. IN, Indianapolis, At- against the Nopperts. torney for W.R. Grace & Co-Conn. 2. Whether the statute repose bars Raymond Modesitt, H. Ryan D. Johan- the plaintiffs' claims. ningsmeier, Wilkinson, Goeller, Modesitt, Wilkinson & Drummy, Haute, IN, Terre FACTS Attorneys for Prox Company, Inc.

AC. & S. is a corporation Delaware OPINION "primarily engaged in the installation of (Harris thermal insulation materials." R. Judge. DARDEN, 184). NARCO is an Ohio corporation in STATEMENTOFPTHECASE the "business of manufacturing, distribut- In this consolidated appeal, Willie J. ing and selling refractory products...." Harris ("Harris"), Jr. Serna, (Harris 47). Esther indi R. Mallinckrodt is a Dela- vidually and as Special Administrator of corporation ware that has manufactured ("the the Estate of Louis Sernas"), Serna and shipped products "that may have con- Freda Noppert, individually and Special (Mallinckrodt tained asbestos...." Supp. Administrator of 78). the Estate of Robert R. Combustion is a Delaware corpo- ("the Nopperts"), and Caroline engaged in ration the business of manufac- Gottschalk, individually Special and as Ad turing and shipping refractory products. ministrator to the Estate of John Gott- Kaiser is a corporation Delaware also en- ("the Gottschalks)" schalk appeal four gaged trial in refractory business. WTI is judgments granting summary judg corporation, Delaware and Rapid Ameri- ment concerning the statute of in can and Weil-MecLain corporations are do- April 1. On Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. W.R. Grace entered into asbestos-containing to an exposed a he was Grace W.R. in Indiana. ing business de- by either supplied specifically corporation. Connecticut fendant. Facts: Harris filed his Harris laborer, patch- oven aas worked Harris to A.C. responses evidence designated Inland Steel er, leader group motions for and NARCO's & S8. retire- until his Chicago East there was argued that Harris judgment. main- involved work 1998. His ment concerning fact material issue of genuine openings, sealing by ovens taining coke to asbestos-con- exposed he was whether lining, brick ovens' repairing the defen- supplied taining the door joints between "the spraying A.C. & S. November dants. On cement [a] work with oven brick jambs and judg- for motion withdrew 104). (Harris R. ..." spray gun. exposure. on ment based 1996, Henry Anderson 15, Dr. On June 6, 1999, court the trial December On having asbestosis2 as Harris diagnosed defendants' took the hearing and held 16, 1996, filed his Harris September On ad- under summary judgment for motions Court County Superior in Lake complaint 1999, 17, the trial On December visement. defendants, including numerous NARCO's and A.C. & S8. his Among and NARCO. & S8. AC. judgment because motions liability, strict conspiracy, claims of "more than filed complaint was Harris' his as alleged that also Harris negligence, any product delivery of after the his ex by caused proximately was bestosis asbestos," and contained could have which asbestos fibers harmful and/or posure nor NARCO & S8. A.C. neither because knowingly asbestosis-containing 658). (Harris R. asbestos. mined and sold manufactured, sold processed, designed, Facts: Serna NARCO. S. and by AC. & distributed mason, laborer, aas worked Louis Serna 1998, 24, December On from 1942 Inland Steel custodian dead- proposed file parties ordered laborer, Serna shov- Mr. "As a to 1985. 80, September On trial dates. lines and the flues swept debris eled for sum- 1999, its motion filed NARCO hand by passed bricks Hearth and Open on judgment based mary bricklayers who wheelbarrow October likewise on & S. did repose. A.C. of the parts and other on the roof worked argued 5, Both defendants 30). (Serna ma- As a R. Hearth." Open it because is time barred complaint Harris' furnaces son, and maintained repaired he (10) year statute the ten filed outside to make steel. used and ovens argued they repose period. 18, 1998, Fergu K. Dr. Mark mined both defendant neither because having malignant Mr. Serna diagnosed asbestos, son Harris' com- commercial and sold were no The Sernas mes othelioma.3 under the two- brought could not be plaint 1998. On April diagnosis tified of Final- asbestos. year exeeption period filed their the Sernas that December asserted NARCO ly, & S. and A.C. Court County Superior in Lake complaint any evidence present Harris failed tumor, either "primary ais 3. Mesothelioma as a intersti- "[dliffuse defined 2. Asbestosis is or- various malignant," that lines benign or prolonged to the due pulmonary tial fibrosis Mrpicat Gourp DicrIONaRY Gourp body. gans of the Menicat dust." inhalation of Dictionary ed.1979). (4th ed.1979). (4th defendants, numerous including Superior Court against numerous defen- Mallinckrodt, Combustion, Kaiser, dants, NAR- Sears, including S., A.C. & Rapid- CO, and Among WTI. their claims of con- American, and Weil-Meclain. Among spiracy, strict liability, and negligence, the their claims of negligence, strict lability, alleged Sernas that Mr. Serna's condition and loss consortium, the Nopperts ar- proximately by caused unreasonably gued that Mr. Noppert's asbestosis was dangerous manufactured, asbestos fibers proximately caused by his exposure to the supplied or installed the defendants. asbestos-containing products sold by the defendants. Subsequently, on January

On different dates throughout 1999, 1996, Dr. Michael Lykens G. diagnosed Combustion, Kaiser, Mallinckrodt, and Mr. with malignant mesothelio- WTI all filed motions for summary judg- ma; Mr. Noppert died on May ment based on product identification and the statute of repose. Mr. Serna subse- On May 1997, A.C. & S8.filed its quently died 1999. On motion for summary judgment and the December the Sernas filed their trial court set the matter for hearing on consolidated response to the defendants' July 1997. The trial court argu- heard motions for summary judgment, and the ments and took the matter under advise- trial court held a hearing 18, on January ment. September 11, On 1997, Sears filed its 10, On 2000, March the trial de- court motion for summary judgment arguing nied the defendants' motions for summary that the statute of limitation then codified judgment based on identification. § at Ind.Code 38-1-1.5-5 Nop-perts' barred the However, the trial granted court the de- m.4 The trial court granted clai fendants' motions for summary judgment Sears' motion on 3, October 1997. The because Serna's complaint was not filed Nopperts filed a motion to correct errors ten-year the repose period and on 16, 1997, and, December days later, two there was no evidence that the defendants the trial court the Nopperts' mo mined and sold asbestos. The ap- Sernas _- tion to correct errors and vacated its order peal. granting Sears' motion for summary judg Noppert Facts: ment. appealed Sears to this court argu ing that Nopperts'

From the 1980, 1959 until "motion to Robert correct errors was erroneously granted worked as a plumber and because pipe-fitter for the motion untimely various was employers filed and and because exposed was to as- the Nopperts did not bestos have a during this period. meritorious During his work, defense to the summary Mr. Noppert recalled mo seeing asbes- tion." air, tos in Sears the Roebuck and knocking Co. v. Noppert, it off pipes, mixing 1065, mud, N.E.2d asbestos being (Ind.Ct.App.1999), and around insulators denied,. trans. using asbestos. In February 1991, Dr. Alvin J. Schon- February 17, 1999, On this court ren diagnosed field Mr. Noppert as having as- dered an opinion reversing the trial court's 25, bestosis. April 1995, On the Nopperts granting order the Nopperts' motion to filed their complaint in the Vigo County correct errors and remanded the case to provision 4. This is now known as the statute 3-1. and is codified at Ind.Code 34-20- with out being whited air as the scribe[d] to rein instructions trial would work he when powder of Sears. summary judgment state 268). (Gottschalk R. Nopperts' case, held we the material." around untimely errors correct

motion 1996, 11, Dr. Jacob- William On Nop- found filed. Mr. diagnosed and biopsy a performed son defense a meritorious have not perts did mesotheli- malignant having Gottschalk the statuto fall into not did Sears because on October died oma, Mr. Gottschalk and miner being both ry exception 1997, 2, the Gott- January 22, On excep The asbestos. commercial seller of Vigo complaint filed their schalks two Nopperts given have would tion numerous Court County Superior file diagnosis date McLain defendants, including Weil complaint.5 their of strict claims Among their Grace. W.R. 1999, court set 22, the trial April On negligence, conspiracy, liability, Dur- 25, 1999. for June hearing pre-trial that Mr. Gottschalk's alleged Gottschalks Rapid- 1999, Weil-McLain ing June caused proximately mesothelioma judg- summary motions filed American asbestos-containing prod- his repose. statute upon ment based defendants. by the provided ucts court continued the trial On June and the indefinitely, mo hearing filed the defendants pre-trial In June the defen- response their filed tions Nopperts judgment. repose. On motions for

dants' response. filed their the Gottschalks trial court September hearing on the matter set after proceedings stay of lifted 2, 1999.6 December case, in the Sears denied transfer was all the hearing on and scheduled supra, reasons aforementioned the same For De- for summary judgment motions granted Facts, trial court trial court found The 1999. cember motions Grace's and W.R. Weil-McLain and miners not both were the defendants Gott- asbestos, and of commercial sellers repose. of schalks any to show "failed Nopperts that the defendants found The within Defendant's any of of com- and sellers miners not both were (Nop- (10) repose." year statute the ten asbestos, the Gottschalks mercial was 48). Summary judgment pert R. the ten complaint their not filed had S., Weil- of A.C. granted The (10) period. year McLain, Rapid-American, appealed. Gottschalks appealed. have Nopperts Facts: Appellate Facts: Gottschalk all the represents firm The same law a construction John Gottschalk moved for and has in these cases plaintiffs He worked to 1996. worker from Appellate Ind. under former consolidation next asbestos, also worked 29, 2000, we 5(B).7 September Rule "He de- mixed asbestos. workers who Su- Indiana January Effective 7. § 34-20-3-2. Ind.Code Rules of Indiana preme Court recodified governing rule The Appellate Procedure. hearing which the the same 6. This was codi- appeal is now cases on consolidation summary judgment were Noppert motions 38(B). Appellate Rule at Ind. fied heard. granted the motion and consolidated these the Nopperts' motion to vacate on Novem- cases under the instant cause ber 1997. The Nopperts then filed a number. motion to correct errors on December DECISION 1997, which the trial granted on De- Collateral Estoppel cember vacating grant of sum- mary judgment on behalf of Sears. Sears Nopperts argue that the trial court appealed, and this court found that erroneously granted S., A.C. & Rapid, trial court had erroncously granted the American, and Weil-MecLain's motions for Nopperts' motion to correct errors because summary judgment based on the statute of it was filed; not timely and that Nop- repose. addition, Weil-MecLain argues perts had not sought to appeal the grant- that our decision in 705 N.E.2d Sears ing of summary judgment by filing a time- 1065, should collaterally estop the Nop- ly notice of appeal. perts from re-litigating the statute of re- pose issue this appeal. However, applying collateral estoppel to the facts in the bar, case at we find that "The doctrine of collateral estop- the Nopperts have not had a full and fair pel bars the re-litigation in a subsequent opportunity to litigate against the remain action of a fact or adjudicated issue in a ing defendants the issue of whether the prior City lawsuit." Davis, Anderson v. statute of repose bars their Habili 366 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) suit, ty The record reveals that summary added). (emphasis "The primary consider primarily Sears ation in the use of [collateral estoppel] is on the issues of timeliness of the Nopperts' whether party against whom the for pleadings and whether Sears both mined adjudication mer is asserted had 'a full and and sold products. We find that fair opportunity to litigate the issue and it would be unfair under the cireumstances whether it would be otherwise unfair un to collaterally estop the Nopperts from der the cireumstances' permit the use of litigating the statute of repose issue [collateral estoppel] in the subsequent ac the other defendants when that tion." Mendenhall City Indianapolis issue was not addressed in Sears Fur N. E.2d 1225 (Ind.Ct.App. thermore, our decision in Sears included a 1999) (quoting Sullivan v. American Casu finding that the statutory exeeption to the alty Pa., Co. Reading, 605 N.E.2d of statute of repose applies only to those (Ind.1992)). entities who both mined and sold commer Sears, In supra, Sears had filed its cial § asbestos. I.C. 84-20-3-2. Howev motion for summary judgment er, on Septem more recently, we have decided a line 11, 1997, and, ber (30) less than thirty days of cases disagree that with that finding. later, the granted trial court Sears' motion. ACandS, Inc., See Black v. 752 N.E.2d 148 Arguing they that were given not thirty (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Parks v. A.P. Green (80) days in which to respond pursuant Industries, Inc., (Ind.Ct. 754 N.E.2d 1052 56(C), Ind. Trial Rule filed a App.2001); Jurich ex rel. Estate Jurich v. Nopperts the motion to vacate the trial court's order on Garlock, Inc., (Ind.Ct. 759 N.E.2d 1066 1997. The trial court denied App.2001).8 thereof, As a result pur- Black, In we noted that we had question Black, not been meaning," of its previously presented "cogent argument at distinguished and we opinions our legal authority identifying ambiguity the ACandS, Inc., Holmes v. 711 N.E.2d 1289 of this directly section and addressing (Ind.Ct.App.1999), the Rapid-American Novicki v. denied. trans. (Ind.Ct.App.1998), 593, 595 statute analysis of the ensuing to the suant met, the are requirements two are If these Nopperts the find that repose, of non-moving party the raising the shifts to from then collaterally estopped burden

not genuine showing the remain- that facts designate issue repose of statute Id. "When fact exists. material of ing defendants. issue for sum a motion makes defendant the Repose 2. Statute of by materials supported mary judgment the may that argue plaintiff the appellants The T.R. by contemplated summary erroneously must set but pleadings, [their] on not rest they Specifically, the defendants. favor of controverting the claim facts specific forth ten-year statute that the argue using supporting judgment, summary for actions related to asbestos apply not does rule." Co by the contemplated materials itself manifest may not injury the because Service, 654 N.E.2d Vending Pride v. len they ar- years. many more trans. (Ind.Ct.App.1995), 1159, 1162-1163 pre- of action cause barring their that gue denied. the having access them vents must liability actions product general, I, § 12 of by Art. guaranteed as courts after years two within brought class Constitution, creates a be and it Indiana years within or privileges accrues additional of action that have cause litigants I, Art product delivery of prohibited as immunities after ap- However, if the Constitution. the Indiana or consumer. § 23 of user initial (8) proper- the trial eight that least counter at pellees acerues of action cause repose barred (10) after ly years found than ten less years but they were because claims appellants' may delivery, the action initial statutory ten-year brought within not (2) two any time within commenced limit. accrues. of action cause after § 84-20-8-1. I.C. summary purpose

"The there which about litigation to terminate of re to the exception An may which dispute and no factual can be actions. asbestos-related pose Kott exists law." matter of as a be determined 34-20-3-2(b) provides 67O § Bridgestone/Firestone, L.C. Specifically, lowski liability action de trans. (Ind.Ct.App.1996), N.E.2d disease, or disability, injury, standard personal the same apply We nied. to asbestos a motion reviewing resulting from court when death trial any years after we resolve two judgment, commenced must be she inferences he or knows that person to facts injured doubts as judgment. Black, opposing disease. party an asbestos-related has Additionally, "[this Id. liability only product applies exception] evidence, mov the designating After mined and who 'persons actions making a "of the burden ing party bears ....." I.C. commercial sold asbestos gen are no there showing that facie prima added). 34-20-3-2(d) It (emphasis § the and that material fact uine issues upon phrase of this interpretation matter as a movant is entitled be decided. controversy shall this which Skaggs, 693 N.E.2d Luider v. of law." (Ind.Ct.App.1999), in which 1065 N.E.2d (Ind.Ct.App.1999), Corp. 707 N.E.2d dicta, exception in only considered Sears, Roebuck, had Noppert, Co. v. Black, we noted that supreme our 154. This line of reasoning is followed in court in Canada, Covalt v. Carey Inc., 543 Parks and Jurich. (Ind.1989)

N.E.2d 382 answered a certified question regarding plaintiff's a ability to As the appellees need not have bring suit years within two after discover- both mined and sold commercial asbestos, disease, ing a notwithstanding that the we find that the trial court herein has discovery was made more than years erroneously granted summary judgment after the last based on the statute of repose. Willie caused the disease. The court answered Harris was diagnosed with asbestosis on in the affirmative noting that one can be June 1996 and filed his complaint on injured from prolonged exposure to newly 16, 1996, June two-year limita milled just as one can injured tion. Louis Serna was diagnosed as hav from asbestos which has been on the mar- ing mesothelioma on March 1998 and ket for ten years Further, or more. the Sernas filed their complaint on Decem court also noted its concern was not with ber also within the allowed. time the introduction of product into the mar- Robert Noppert was initially diagnosed ketplace, but with exposure to a hazardous with asbestosis February 1991 and the substance which causes disease. Nopperts filed their complaint on April This court's attention in Black then 1995. Noppert was later diagnosed with turned to determining legislature's in- mesothelioma on January 1996 and tent 2(d). in enacting section We found subsequently amended his complaint. that reviewing courts have the authority to While more than two elapsed had make minor substitutions of words in or- between the Nopperts' initial asbestosis der give effect to legislative intent. See diagnosis and the filing of his initial com Dague v. Piper Corp., 275 Ind. Aircraft plaint, we find that his subsequent diagno (1981). 418 N.E.2d 207 Having noted sis of mesothelioma preserved his claim that we had interpreted liabili- against the § defendants. See I.C. 34-20- ty statute in a manner that "in ("'The 3-2 subsequent development of an effect, changes disjunctive term 'or/ additional asbestos related inju disease or course, which of appears in statute, to ry is a new injury and separate is a cause conjunctive 'and'" where giving the action."). John Gottschalk was term "or" its ordinary meaning would diagnosed as having mesothelioma on "fly] in the face of a clearly contrary 1996 and the Gottschalks filed legislative intent." Dague, 275 Ind. at their complaint on January 1997, also 526, 418 N.E.2d at result, 211. As a we within the two-year exception period. found that legislature's intent in enact- Therefore, as the appellants' claims were 2(d) ing was, section in part, to recognize brought within the two-year exception as long latency period of asbestos related provided by $ 34-20-8-2, I.C. injuries. Without exception, this the ma- Judgment was erroneously granted. jority persons injured would have no remedy. result, As a "[wle Because believe the we find in favor of the appel legislature could not have intended to per- lants based on the repose, statute of we do mit actions an entity that both not address the constitutional challenges mined and sold asbestos preclude but to raised in their brief. See General Motors actions entities that introduced as- v. Indianapolis Power & Light, 654 bestos into the marketplace as only miners (when N.E.2d 752 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) stat or Black, as seller only." 752 N.E.2d at ute challenged on constitutional grounds, defendants' asbestos haled noneon- of case dispose to seek first

we al- 1942 and between beginning grounds). stitutional the prod- no evidence there is ternatively remanded. Reversed old when years more than ucts were to exposed allegedly were plaintiffs J., NAJAM, concurs. Thus, products. in the contained asbestos with in result BARNES, J., concurs the statute of application hold that I would opinion. separate would violate instance in this repose of Consti- Indiana I, 12 of the Article Section in result concurring BARNES, Judge, in reverse tution opinion. separate on that basis. the defendants favor of reached result I concur of reversal namely, the majority, the defendants of of statute liability act product

upon necessary to it is I do believe

repose. of the statute constitutionality

address case, as we in this applied as repose

of Packing Appellant-Defendant, v. Anchor in Jurich recently did John INGLE, (Ind.Ct.App. al., 759 N.E.2d etCo. exception to 2001). There, held we Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. of STATE "per actions of as sold commercial mined sons who 22A01-0109-CR-340. No. sell apply to to intended not bestos" of Indiana. Appeals of Court but products, asbestos-containing ers asbestos processed or of "raw" only sellers 4, 2002. products. other into incorporated is May Transfer denied in Here, appears it Op., p. 1070-71. did defendants particular these Jurich only but asbestos" sell "commercial

not hence, the products;

asbestos-containing not repose was

exception to them. apply

intended to hold

Nevertheless, on to went of the statute application

Jwrich I, Article Section violate

repose would in cases Constitution the Indiana injured by an asbes- is plaintiff

"where by exposure either

tos-containing product the enactment fibers before asbestos act, 1978], liability and/or [product no evidence

where there the time old at than ten more fibers exposed plaintiff was Op., p. product."

contained in- in this the case appears

That in- allegedly plaintiffs The various

stance.

Case Details

Case Name: Harris v. A.C. & S., Inc.

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jan 10, 2002

Citation: 766 N.E.2d 383

Docket Number: 45A03-0004-CV-144

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.