Light v. NIPSCO Industries, Inc.
2001 WL 488918, 747 N.E.2d 73, 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 754 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gratuitous promise to render services may create an enforceable tort duty of reasonable care if the promisee reasonably relies on that promise, even if the promisor never begins performance (nonfeasance).
Facts:
- In 1988, Mr. Light contacted Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) about converting his home's heating system to natural gas.
- Light inquired about installer safety, and a NIPSCO employee told him that while they do not recommend specific installers, 'if the work isn't right, we make them correct it before turning on the gas.'
- NIPSCO also informed Light that after the installation was complete, he would have to call them to come out, inspect the work, and turn on the gas.
- Light hired a contractor, Kim Hummel, after NIPSCO assured him Hummel could perform the work.
- Hummel installed a new furnace and water heater.
- When Light returned home, he found he had hot water and assumed NIPSCO had inspected the work and turned on the gas as promised.
- Nine years later, a different contractor discovered that the water heater had been improperly vented, causing carbon monoxide to escape into the home.
- The Lights alleged that this carbon monoxide exposure caused Mr. Light to suffer health problems.
Procedural Posture:
- The Lights filed a lawsuit against Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) in an Indiana trial court.
- NIPSCO moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to the Lights.
- The trial court granted NIPSCO's motion for summary judgment.
- The Lights (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with NIPSCO as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a utility company's gratuitous promise to inspect an installation, upon which a homeowner relies, create an enforceable tort duty of reasonable care, even if the company never actually performs the inspection?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrard, Senior Judge
Yes. A gratuitous promise to inspect, when accompanied by reasonable reliance by the promisee, can create a legal duty in tort, making the promisor liable for nonfeasance if that reliance was reasonable under the circumstances. The court reasoned that while the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A does not explicitly state whether a mere promise without performance is sufficient, Indiana case law, such as in Ember v. B.F.D. Inc., extends liability for nonfeasance in situations where a beneficiary detrimentally relies on a gratuitous promise. Therefore, NIPSCO's promise to inspect, coupled with Light's alleged reliance, is sufficient to potentially create a legal duty. Whether such a duty exists and the extent of it are questions of fact for a jury, making summary judgment for NIPSCO inappropriate.
Dissenting - Mathias, Judge
No. A gratuitous promise without any performance should not be sufficient to create a duty in tort. The dissent argues that the majority's holding blurs the line between tort law and contract law, where a promise generally requires consideration to be enforceable. It creates a risk of imposing liability in informal situations, such as a friend volunteering to inspect a car, which could have undesirable social consequences. The dissent suggests that any claim the Lights might have against NIPSCO should be analyzed under contract theory, where the future payments for gas could potentially serve as consideration for the promise to inspect, rather than expanding tort liability for nonfeasance based on a bare promise.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying and expanding the doctrine of assumed duty in Indiana tort law. It establishes that liability can arise from nonfeasance (a complete failure to act) based solely on a promise and reasonable reliance, whereas the traditional rule often required some affirmative act or undertaking (misfeasance). This lowers the bar for plaintiffs to bring negligence claims based on unfulfilled promises, potentially blurring the distinction between tort and contract law by allowing a tort remedy for a promise that might fail for lack of consideration in contract. The ruling will likely influence future cases involving service providers who make safety-related assurances to customers.
