Indiana Court Times

Published by the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration

You are here: Home / Articles / Summary Judgment Motions

Summary Judgment Motions

By Hon. Marianne L. Vorhees | Judge, Delaware Circuit Court #1

Judge: Counsel, are you ready to argue the Motion for Summary Judgment? Very well, Counsel for Defendant, you may proceed.

Defendant’s Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor. [She proceeds to make an eloquent, well-organized 35-minute argument supporting her client’s motion for summary judgment.]

Plaintiff’s Attorney: Your Honor, I would like to cite the Indiana Supreme Court’s Hughley opinion1, which says trial courts should not grant summary judgments anymore. Cases need to go to trial on the merits. I am asking you to do what the Indiana Supreme Court says and let the jury decide this case. Thank you.

Attorneys opposing summary judgment motions have made this argument on a regular basis over the past four years in Indiana. They are correct that Hughley affirms the Court’s commitment to Indiana’s summary judgment standard as set out in the Jarboe case2. In Indiana, unlike the federal courts, summary judgment is not appropriate “merely because the non-movant appears unlikely to prevail at trial.”3
But Trial Rule 56 is still in the rule book and remains an appropriate litigation tool. The Indiana appellate courts continue to affirm trial courts in granting summary judgment motions. Often a summary judgment motion benefits the parties by narrowing the scope of the litigation or reducing the number of issues you send to the jury.
Keep in mind: you will usually see the complex summary judgment motions in Civil Tort (CT) or Civil Plenary (PL) cases. The attorneys have all the “heavy lifting.” They have to know the substantive legal standards as well as the procedural requirements to present and defend the motion.
As judge, you will rarely if ever want to enter summary judgment sua sponte where no party has moved for summary judgment.4 In a CT or PL case, simply set a dispositive motion deadline in your pre-trial or case management order and let the parties decide whether to file a motion for summary judgment on one or all issues.
What issues should make you feel comfortable using summary judgment? There are several I can propose, but keep in mind this list is not intended to include every possible category:

Insurance contract coverage issues:

Pike v. Conestoga Title Insurance Co., 44 N.E.3d 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Frierson, 49 N.E.3d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Contract interpretation

Community Anesthesia & Pain Treatment, LLC v. St. Mary Medical Center, Inc., 26 N.E.3d 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), transfer denied.

Choice of Law Issues (which state’s law applies):

National Union Fire Insurance v. Standard Fusee, 940 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. 2010).

Whether a contractual provision violates public policy:

Devereux v. DiBenedetto, 45 N.E.3d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Tort Claim Act Issues:

Feldhake v. Buss, 36 N.E.3d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
You will also see summary judgment motions filed in cases where we rarely saw them before: cases involving criminal acts by third parties on the premises,5 activities on the premises,6 and sports injuries.7
 

  1. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014).
  2. Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994).
  3. Hughley v. State 15 N.E.3d at 1004.
  4. State ex rel. Van Buskirk v. Wayne Township, 418 N.E.2d 234, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).
  5. Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016). Cases following Goodwin include two cases involving Steak ‘n Shake Restaurant: Hamilton, 92 N.E.3d 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), transfer denied; Certa, 102 N.E.3d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), transfer denied.
  6. Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016).
  7. Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011); Megenity v. Dunn, 68 N.E.3d 1080 (Ind. 2017); Wooten v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, 63 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).