« Ind. Decisions - Gary Post-Tribune editorial about 7th Circuit wine shipping decision | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending August 22, 2008 »

Friday, August 22, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 9 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Yolanda Rice, as Guardian and Next Friend of Dagoberto Lozez v. Albert Harper, et al. , a 16-page opinion, Judge May writes:

Dagoberto Lopez was injured while riding in a van driven by an employee of Kenny Industrial Services. Yolanda Rice, as Lopez’s guardian and next friend, filed suit against Kenny. Kenny filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the Worker’s Compensation Act provided Lopez’s exclusive remedy. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and we affirm. * * *

Pursuant to American Coal Mining and Chaney, Lopez’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, the trial court did not err by concluding the Worker’s Compensation Act applies and dismissing the case.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

In Hussein Mroueh and Phillip K. Dabagia v. Luke Oil, Inc. (NFP), a 2-1, 14-page opinion (including the 7-page dissent), Judge Najam writes:

At some point after all of the purchase documents were executed, M & D ceased operating the facility as a Citgo-branded facility. Thereafter, in September of 2003, Citgo informed Luke Oil of a breach in the branding obligations, and Citgo demanded Luke Oil pay $84,653.89 in damages. Luke Oil complied, requested reimbursement from M & D, and, after that request went unanswered, brought an indemnity suit against M & D, Dabagia, and Mroueh. * * *

Both of Mroueh and Dabagia’s arguments pertaining to the guaranties ignore Indiana’s well-established law of contract interpretation. Namely, the court will attempt to determine the parties’ intent when entering a contract from their expressions within the four corners of the written instrument. See, e.g., City of Lawrenceburg v. Milestone

On March 20, 2007, Luke Oil filed a motion for summary judgment in which Luke Oil argued that it was “entitled to reimbursement of the debranding obligation.” * * *

Here, the four corners of the personal guaranties plainly state that Mroueh and Dabagia each “guarantee the prompt payment at maturity of all indebtedness hereafter or heretofore so incurred by [M & D] to [Luke Oil] under the terms of any and all such agreements. * * *

The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Luke Oil is affirmed in all respects. Affirmed.

DARDEN, J., concurs.
BROWN, J., dissents with separate opinion. [which begins] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the guaranties are unambiguous in favor of Luke Oil. I conclude that the guaranties are ambiguous and lack consideration and, thus, that the trial court erred by granting Luke Oil’s motion for summary judgment.

NFP criminal opinions today (8):

Robert J. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Randy L. Nelson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dennis W. Spratt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lok Mabbitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Anthoney E. Mayberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ramon Harper v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jerome Herrod, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeffrey Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 22, 2008 11:18 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts