Chris A. Kelly v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles ( 2024 )

FILED
Jul 08 2024, 9:10 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Chris A. Kelly,
Appellant-Defendant
v.
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles,
Appellee-Plaintiff
July 8, 2024
Court of Appeals Case No.
23A-CT-2799
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court
The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49D06-2301-CT-3437
Opinion by Judge Bailey
Judges Crone and Pyle concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 23A-CT-2799 | July 8, 2024 Page 1 of 4
Bailey, Judge.
[1] The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“the BMV”) seeks rehearing of our
April 29, 2024, published opinion, Kelly v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 234
N.E.3d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), in which we reversed the trial court’s order
dismissing Kelly’s complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm our opinion
but grant rehearing to clarify which statute serves as the basis for Kelly’s
negligence claim.
[2] Kelly sued the BMV in a Complaint for Damages in which the sole issue he
raised was the BMV’s alleged negligence in failing to maintain accurate driving
records for him, in violation of Article 14 (“Bureau of Motor Vehicles”) of
Chapter 9 (“Motor Vehicles”) of the Indiana Code. Specifically, he alleged that
the BMV failed to keep an accurate driving record for him in violation of
Indiana Code Sections 9-14-8-1, et seq., 9-14-12-2, and 9-14-12-3, and that
failure caused him damages. Our opinion held that Kelly stated a statutory
claim for which relief may be granted because Indiana Code Section 9-14-12-3
confers a private right of action regarding individuals’ driving records.
[3] In its Petition for Rehearing, the BMV asserts that Kelly did not state a
statutory claim because there is no private right of action to challenge a
suspension, as such actions must be challenged through the independent
enforcement mechanism provided for in Indiana Code Section 9-33-1-1.
However, the BMV misunderstands Kelly’s underlying statutory claim. Kelly is
not challenging the act of suspending his driver’s license under Chapter 9,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 23A-CT-2799 | July 8, 2024 Page 2 of 4
Article 30 of the Indiana Code, to which the independent enforcement
mechanism applies. Rather, Kelly’s complaint alleges that the suspension had
already been lifted but the BMV failed to keep records accurately reflecting the
lifting of the suspension. That claim is raised under Chapter 9, Article 14 of the
Indiana Code, to which the independent enforcement mechanism of IC 9-33-1-
1 clearly does not apply. Thus, we affirm our opinion that Kelly stated a claim
for which relief may be granted, and the trial court erred in dismissing it. 1
[4] Moreover, we note that if the BMV fails to accurately maintain individuals’
records as required by statute, it is not a mere technicality. Such a failure has
real-life consequences, especially for the many individuals such as Kelly who
have livelihoods that are dependent upon being able to legally drive a vehicle.
It is possible that the legislature recognized such potentially life up-ending
consequences of an incorrect driving record when it chose not to apply the
independent enforcement mechanism of Indiana Code Section 9-33-1-1 to
Chapter 9, Article 14.
1
As we noted in our published opinion, in addition to stating a statutory claim, Kelly alleged that the BMV
“breached the duty of care [it is] required to provide.” App. at 9. Whether or not he thereby also stated a
common-law claim for negligence is of no consequence at this stage of the proceedings, as he clearly stated a
statutory negligence claim. See Winters v. Pike, 171 N.E.3d 690, 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“Indiana’s notice
pleading system does not require a pleading to adopt a specific legal theory of recovery to be adhered to
throughout the case; rather, Indiana Trial Rule 8 merely requires pleading the operative facts so as to place
the defendant on notice concerning the evidence to be presented at trial.”). Footnote 8 in our original
opinion was dicta to the extent it discussed a potential existing common-law claim in this case. However, to
avoid confusion, we strike footnote 8 from our prior opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 23A-CT-2799 | July 8, 2024 Page 3 of 4
[5] We grant the BMV’s petition for rehearing, strike footnote 8 from our original
opinion, and affirm our original opinion in all other respects.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Daniel K. Burke
DKB Legal LLC
Carmel, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Frances Barrow
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 23A-CT-2799 | July 8, 2024 Page 4 of 4