Hagerman Construction, Inc. v. Copeland
1998 Ind. App. LEXIS 1703, 1998 CCH OSHD 31,656, 697 N.E.2d 948 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Indiana Comparative Fault Act, a non-settling defendant is entitled to a credit (set-off) for the amount paid by a settling joint tortfeasor who was named a nonparty at trial but was ultimately assigned zero percent of the fault by the jury.
Facts:
- Ball State University contracted with Hagerman Construction, Inc. (Hagerman) as a prime contractor for the construction of a new basketball arena.
- The university also hired Sater Electric Co. (Sater) as a separate prime contractor for mechanical and electrical work.
- Hagerman subcontracted with John F. Beasley Construction Co. (Beasley) to perform ironwork.
- Anthony Copeland, an employee of Beasley, was working on the project when he fell approximately forty-five feet to his death through an unprotected opening in the precast concrete floor.
- The opening was intended for vertical heating and cooling ductwork that was to be installed by Sater.
- Before the accident, another subcontractor, Crown-Corr, had requested that Hagerman cover the openings, and Hagerman had done so at some point, but the specific opening was uncovered at the time of the fall.
- Prior to trial, Copeland's estate reached a settlement with Sater.
Procedural Posture:
- Teresa Copeland, as administratrix of Anthony Copeland's estate, filed a wrongful death complaint in a state trial court against Hagerman and others.
- Prior to trial, Copeland settled her claim against Sater Electric Co., which was then designated as a nonparty for the purposes of fault allocation.
- Following a jury trial, the jury found Hagerman 100% at fault and awarded Copeland $4,750,000 in damages, assigning 0% fault to the nonparty, Sater.
- Hagerman filed a post-trial motion for set-off, requesting a credit against the judgment in the amount of Copeland's settlement with Sater.
- The trial court denied Hagerman's motion for set-off.
- Hagerman (Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment and denial of its post-trial motion to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-settling defendant, found 100% liable at trial, entitled to a set-off for the settlement amount paid by another party who was named as a nonparty but found to have zero percent fault by the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Ratliff, Senior Judge
Yes, a non-settling defendant is entitled to a credit against the judgment for the amount paid by a settling joint tortfeasor to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining a double recovery for the same injury. The court reasoned that the general rule is to credit a judgment with any amounts received by the plaintiff from a settling joint tortfeasor. This rule prevents the plaintiff from recovering more than the total damages assessed. While naming a settling party as a nonparty under the Comparative Fault Act typically prevents a set-off (because the judgment is already reduced by that nonparty's allocated percentage of fault), that logic does not apply when the jury assigns the nonparty zero percent fault. In such a case, the judgment is not reduced, and the settlement amount constitutes a double recovery for the plaintiff. Therefore, to prevent this unjust enrichment, the non-settling defendant is entitled to a set-off.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interplay between Indiana's Comparative Fault Act and the common law principle prohibiting double recovery. It establishes that the primary goal of preventing a plaintiff from being compensated twice for the same injury overrides the procedural mechanisms of the Act when those mechanisms fail to achieve that end. The ruling provides a clear precedent for cases where a settling party is designated as a nonparty but is later exonerated by the jury, ensuring that the remaining liable defendant is not forced to pay for damages already covered by a settlement. This impacts litigation strategy, as defendants can be more certain of receiving a credit in this specific scenario, while plaintiffs must consider that their total recovery will be capped at the jury's damage award.
