*1 Sacks, 195, Trucking, cause of action.” 258 Ind. at summarily Ashcraft and we af- N.E.2d at 812. opinion points. firm on Ind.Ap- their those 11(B)(3). pellate Rule We remand relationship This to was similar that in trial court with judg- instructions to enter Sacks, we on in another case relied Busch Glyn on ment for KFG claim Ashcraft’s Ass’n., mann Men’s Professional and to conduct a new trial on the issue of (7th Cir.1969). case, F.2d 659 In that damages Trucking. incurred Ashcraft plaintiff pre-incorpo- into had entered ration contract with the defendant DeBRULER, provide
which the defendant man DICKSON and was KRAHULIK, agement corporation JJ., for the in ex new concur. change plaintiffs of contribution assets GIYAN, J., separate dissents without guaranty corporation’s of
and the new opinion. explained, As the debt. Seventh Circuit “the promises directly defendant made gave
Buschmann the breach of which rise
ato
cause of action.”
Here, plaintiff offered extensive evi- working
dence about the close relationship personnel
between and and KFG Ash- Trucking personnel, including
craft and its Ashcraft, Glyn president and sole share- CHICAGO, SCHOOL CITY OF EAST relationship holder. When the was build- INDIANA, Community A Cor- School president of KFG told (Plaintiff poration, Below), Appellant Ashcraft, buy “You haul trucks and fiberglass, you go and I’ll see that don’t 3063-69, out business.” at CHICAGO EAST FEDERATION OF subject The events are which TEACHERS, LOCAL NUMBER lawsuit, however, occurred late (Defendant Below). A.F.T., Appellee was 1983. There extensive evidence dis No. 64S03-9310-CV-1150. representatives cussions between companies, two plaintiffs introduced Supreme Court of Indiana. asking the letter from KFG that Ashcraft Trucking Oct. prepare expanded business.
Many of these communications involved Ashcraft,
president Glyn but there was
nothing dialogue about this which
Ashcraft to act in any role other than as
president and stockholder. There were no
agreements recog or demands of the sort or
nized Sacks There Buschmann. was urged
no indication that had KFG asked
Glyn give personal guaran Ashcraft to “duty
tee. There was thus no spe owed
cially separate to the stockholder and dis duty
tinct from the corpora owed to the Sacks,
tion.” at Accordingly,
at 811. KFG was entitled to a Glyn on claim of Ashcraft. grant judg- transfer and reverse the Glyn
ment entered on the claim of Ash- Appeals correctly
craft. The Court of de- concerning
cided the issues claim
167 Lesniak, Ruff, Richard J. Nathaniel Les- Ruff, niak Chicago, East appellant. Balanoff, Balanoff, James & Balanoff Munster, Barry Macey, Baird, Barbara J. Macey Swanson, Macey, Indianapolis, & appellee.
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER DICKSON, Justice. ease us to
This asks determine the extent may modify to which a vacate an arbitrator’s award under “ev- figures” provision ident miscalculation of Act, of Indiana’s Uniform Arbitration grant Code 34-4-2-14. We transfer to provide clarification.
The before us arose from a 1988- bargaining agreement, collective fact-finder, after to a reached submission Chicago Teach- between East Federation of ers, (Appellee-Defendant No. be- Local low) Chicago, City and School of East below). (Appellant-Plaintiff Under Indiana to re- agreement, teachers were the final percent salary increase for the ceive a 6.5 percent and 7 year 1988 calendar that in- stipulation with the added “[t]hese compen- incorporate additional creases year.” the increased instructional sation for instructional at “Increased Record extension of a one-week year” referred to to a of 39 calendar total the 1988 academic year’s 38 weeks. previous over the weeks city’s computa- with the school Disagreeing pursuant weekly salaries tion of teachers’ griev- filed a agreement, the union sought city and against the school ance contractual parties’ arbitration under hearing, the procedure. After grievance union award sustained arbitration at 30. entirety.” “in grievance filed mo- Subsequently, County, transferred tions in Lake later Court, seeking va- Superior the Porter modify the arbitrator’s cate and judg- summary The filed a motion for union Our granted. ment which the trial court judgment of Court of reversed miscalcu- court, evident citing “the the trial of the arbitra- figures part lation of on the Chicago, Ind. City tor.” East School Teachers, Chicago scope. Wayne East Fed’n Local Fort Ass Inc. v. No. Educ. 'n Ind.App., 607 N.E.2d Wayne Board Trustees The Fort of Sch. (1991), Ind.App., Sch. Community claims Court Ap- union that the 672, 678. An only award should be peals concluding erred the 6.5 grounds specified set one of aside when salary apply cent increase should to a 39- *3 by the Uniform Arbitration Act for vaca week portion rather than a 38-week of Indianapolis tion of an is award shown. 1988, by as determined the arbitrator.1 Transp. Corp. Amalgamated Pub. argues appellate The union that this rever- Union, (1981), Transit Local 1070 sal imper- of the arbitrator’s determination App., 966, party 414 N.E.2d A 969. who missibly intrudes into the arbitrator's role seeks to an vacate arbitration award under determining of parties’ the contractual in- the Uniform Arbitration Act bears the bur tent Appeals inasmuch as the of Court proving grounds den of the to set the essentially substituted own appellate award aside. Id. The role of an for the that of arbitrator as to the substan- reviewing court in an arbitration award is underlying tive of grievance. merits the determining limited to whether the defen Rather, union alleges, the the Court of grounds dant any has established of the Appeals presumed should have the correct- challenge permitted by Uniform the Arbi judgment, ness of trial the court and the Admin., tration Dep’t Act. State Per city school should have been to of (1981), v. Sightes Ind.App., sonnel Div. establishing bear the statutory burden of N.E.2d grounds challenging the arbitrator’s of forcing agreements to arbitrate and for Uniform Arbitration Teachers, securing judicial review and enforcement bitrator’s award due to this “evident mis- 2-1 agreement, calculation.” ry Chicago, year. generates whether the Court of templated 38 or 39 work weeks for the other arbitration statute. pute resolution but is also inconsistent with lates the “evident miscalculation” awards made.” School schedule contained in the et Court public policy favoring school seq., “provides jurisdictions’ Because the 38-week may Appeals properly We first Finally, Ind. v. East Local a of the salary salary city be school No. reduced to a counters the union contends that recognize which schedule for 1988 con- Act, interpretation of the decision a mechanism for en city Chicago Ind.Code 34-4- exceeds the provision (1981), reversed the ar- urges alternative dis- that Indiana’s City not only computation question the bargaining of Ind.App., Fed’n that the of § present East sala- vio- of states in relevant arbitration rected. the award as made. firm firm the award as so modified and cor- merits merits not may be corrected in a so as submitted; of arbitrators have erty shall (1) description ty the In (b) If (a) establishing figures [90] There submitted award matter referred to in the modify Upon shall to effect its intent of of days court the Otherwise, award, was an the controversy. the modify or an of application or correct of application after any person, thing (3) may modify decision the to form, part: awarded evident mistake the Ind.Code and correct the award evident miscalculation them and the award without grounds upon mailing applicant, the court shall con- award not made the upon is award; upon award affecting affecting or correct an of a granted, is § within the issues 34-4-2-14 the court shall con- imperfect a or copy which a (2) matter where: prop- nine- the the the the the of present case, 658. Judicial review of an In the city the school extremely attempts arbitration award is narrow in of establishing to meet its burden $19,438.00, By dividing $511.53, year the 1988 calendar amounts while to division the annu- salary first-year $498.41, salary by yields salary of a with a weekly teacher bachelor’s al a degree, by weekly salary weekly wage teacher $13.12. difference Colorado, example, has held that justify appellate vaca- statutory basis to modification of an arbitration award under modification of arbitration tion or 22—215(l)(a)(a se- statuto- characterizing Colo.Rev.Stat. the arbitrator’s § award 13— provision mirroring corresponding ry the 39- rather than lection of 38-week 34-4-2-14) is provision Ind.Code “evident miscal- salary week divisor as an § “only if it 34- missible seeks effectuate figures” Ind.Code culation of clearly expressed intent of arbitrator agree. 4-2-14. cannot by correcting error without a mathematical rath- urging application In of the 39- altering his conclusion on the merits.” divisor, than the 38-week er Casualty & Ins. Co. Foust Aetna any improper does not direct attention P.2d North Colo.App., 786 451-52. principles re- application of mathematical meaning has also limited the Carolina *4 Rath- sulting in an evident miscalculation. figures” to miscalculation of “evi- “evident er, position challenges city’s the Cyclone dent mathematical errors.” Roof- brought matter merits of the substantive Co., Co., Inc. Inc. v. David M. LaFave for his determination. the arbitrator before 224, 236, (1984), 312 321 S.E.2d N.C. such, city quarrels not with As the school an 880. Nevada has held that before arbi- oper- application of mathematical the mere may be under the trator’s award set aside with arbitrator’s determina- ations but figures” provi- “evident miscalculation of primary issue of the union’s tion as to sion, must receive evidence that the court in the claim. There is no basis “imperfect.” Richardson the award was characterizing arbitrator’s selection of 763, 766-67, (1991), 818 v. Harris 107 Nev. as an evident miscalcu- the 38-week divisor P.2d lation. today ruling underscores Our Additionally, intent the arbitrator’s is of the conviction that “the interests Court’s by that made clear his observation “[t]his settings other parties preserved can be by salary divided calculation base [1988 judicial resolu- than the traditional un- rather than 39 conforms to the weeks] Preamble, Rules Alter- tion method.” position the increase for ion’s basic ... that Dispute Resolution. endorse native percent by Fact- 1988 of 6.5 recommended purpose of is the arbi- the notion “[i]t preserved weekly Finder Land is since the disput- consideration of tration to entertain represents rate of a true 6.5 $511.53 acceptable to reach an deci- ed matters and weekly increase rate of cent over award, having to under- sion and without Thus, only Record at 29. not is $480.28.” costly judicial ponderous and take often figures, there no evident miscalculation of Brinegar Shahan proceedings.” is but the arbitrator’s award consistent Ind.App. 390 N.E.2d with intent. The school has failed trial is af- of the any the existence of to demonstrate firmed. grounds Uni- statutory enumerated Act as for modi- form Arbitration SHEPARD, and and DeBRULER C.J. fication or vacation of arbitration KRAHULIK, JJ., concur. GIVAN, J., separate opinion. dissents in Furthermore, 34-4-2-21 indi- Ind.Code § GIVAN, Justice, dissenting. cates, chapter part, in relevant that “[t]his majority respectfully I from the so construed as to effectuate its dissent shall be Appeals opinion general purpose to make uniform the law this case. The Court clearly opinion reported at states which enact similar arbitra- those correctly mathematical ruling here is consis- sets out tion statutes.” Our error in an obvious jurisdictions with other who have in- calculation which shows tent such an obvi- terpreted provisions figures. similar to “evident the arbiter’s When made, ous is court has equivalent arbitra- error miscalculation” Ind.Code duty to make a correction under tion statutes. 34-4-2-14(a)(l). The Court of opinion absolutely is correct this case. deny
I would transfer. M.D., WRIGHT, Donner,
R.S. Donald D.
M.D., Center, and Bedford Medical (Defendants
Appellants Below),
Betty Carter, CARTER and John (Plaintiffs Below). Appellees
No. 51S01-9310-CV-1178.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. Koch, Koch, Tipton
Edna M. Cohen & Indianapolis, appellant D. Donald Don- ner, M.D. Mallon, Jr., Pitcher, Kelly
David J. J. Ice Miller Ryan, Donadio & Indianapolis, appellants Wright, R.S. M.D. and Bedford Medical Center.
Barry Brown, Bloomington, appel- S. lees.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice. radiologist Donner, When Donald D. M.D., summary judgment moved for on the malpractice Carter, medical Betty claim of respond expert Carter did not with any Instead, evidence. she relied on the rule of ipsa loquitur. res underly- Given facts claim, Carter’s we hold that was an response insufficient and that Donner was summary judgment. entitled to