Brycor, Inc. d/b/a Meineke Car Care Center v. Anthony Alexander (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 22 2020, 10:09 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Robert E. Ahlgrim Patrick W. Harrison
State Auto Insurance Columbus, Indiana
Carmel, Indiana David W. Stone
Anderson, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brycor, Inc. d/b/a Meineke Car July 22, 2020
Care Center, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant, 19A-CT-2963
Appeal from the Floyd Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Susan L. Orth,
Anthony Alexander, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
22D01-1701-CT-139
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 18
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Brycor, Inc. d/b/a Meineke Car Care Center (Meineke),
appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment in
favor of Appellee-Plaintiff, Anthony Alexander (Alexander). Alexander cross-
appeals.
[2] We reverse, enter partial summary judgment for Meineke, and remand. We
deny Alexander’s cross-appeal.
ISSUES
[3] Meineke presents the court with two issues, one of which we find dispositive
and which we restate as: Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed that
precluded entry of partial summary judgment on Alexander’s personal injury
claims against Meineke.
On cross-appeal, Alexander presents us with one issue, which we restate as:
Whether Meineke was required to file a motion to correct error before pursuing
the instant appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] The facts most favorable to the non-moving party, Alexander, are as follows.
In the later summer of 2016, Alexander, who is a medical doctor and a
chemical engineer, owned a 2008 Lexus SUV (SUV). The SUV developed
problems with its air conditioning system, and Alexander took it to Meineke in
New Albany, Indiana, for repair. The first attempt at repair was unsuccessful,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 18
so Alexander returned to Meineke for a second attempt. After he retrieved the
SUV from Meineke after the second attempt at repair, Alexander drove it
several times over the ensuing weeks from Jeffersonville, Indiana, to Chicago
and back. On these trips Alexander ran the SUV’s air conditioning with the
windows closed. Around the same time, Alexander began experiencing fatigue,
breathing issues, and severe headaches. On four occasions, Alexander found
many flies inside the SUV after having all the windows and doors shut. In
October of 2016, Alexander noticed that there was water on the carpet of the
front passenger side of the SUV. On October 20, 2016, Alexander took the
SUV to a Lexus dealership. Lexus employee David Newton (Newton)
inspected the SUV and concluded that the evaporator drain had been left off the
evaporator case, causing water to drain onto the SUV’s floorboard and carpet.
Newton also found damage to the SUV’s dash pad assembly. The dashboard
and carpet were removed and replaced. At Alexander’s request, Lexus
employees placed the wet carpet from the SUV into a plastic bag which was
then sealed and placed in a box. Parts from the dashboard, including the
ventilation system, were also placed into cardboard boxes. Alexander paid for
the repairs to the SUV.
[5] The boxes containing the SUV’s carpet and parts were stored in Alexander’s
garage until an indoor environmental consulting firm arrived on November 16,
2016, to perform surface fungal sampling on them. On December 6, 2016, the
environmental firm generated a report stemming from that sampling. The
report indicated that testing had revealed the presence of a moderate level of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 18
“Aspergillus/Penicillium-like fungi” on the carpet and low-to-very-low levels of
various other fungi 1 on the carpet and parts. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 50).
The report provided that Aspergillus and Penicillium are common molds found
outdoors and indoors but that some species of these molds do produce toxins
that are unhealthy to humans.
[6] On January 25, 2017, Alexander filed a complaint, which he amended on
September 25, 2017, alleging that Meineke had negligently repaired his SUV,
causing him personal injury and property damage. More specifically,
Alexander alleged that Meineke’s negligence had caused mold to accumulate in
the SUV and his exposure to the mold had damaged his lungs and liver,
necessitating past and future medical care. During discovery, Meineke deposed
Alexander. Meineke also propounded requests for admission. Alexander
responded to Request for Admission Number 12 (Request No. 12) as follows:
[] Alexander does not possess a measurement of the alleged
concentration or level of mold within his vehicle before the parts
and carpet were removed by the Lexus dealership.
Response: admit
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 54).
1
Neither party based its summary judgment arguments on these other fungi, and both parties concentrate
their appellate arguments on the Aspergillus and Penicillium found on the SUV’s carpet. We will concentrate
our analysis there as well.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 4 of 18
[7] On May 24, 2019, Meineke filed a motion for partial summary judgment on
Alexander’s personal injury claims only. Meineke argued that no genuine issue
of material fact existed as to whether the mold at the base of Alexander’s claims
caused his symptoms. In support of its motion, Meineke designated portions of
Alexander’s deposition, the fungal testing report, and Alexander’s admission to
Request No. 12. The designated portions of Alexander’s deposition showed
that he testified that airborne Aspergillus or Penicillium “is not necessarily going
to make you sick unless you have high concentrations of it” and that higher
concentrations are possible in a contained environment. (Appellant’s App. Vol.
II, p. 42). Alexander had also testified that mold tends to grow better in dark,
moist, unventilated spaces, mold can be dormant for years and become active
when the conditions are right, and one would expect to find mold in a vehicle’s
carpet but not in the ventilation system.
[8] On August 9, 2019, Alexander filed his response in opposition to partial
summary judgment which included his verified affidavit (the Affidavit) in
which he averred that none of his claimed physical symptoms had occurred
prior to Meineke working on the air conditioning in his SUV. Alexander
further averred that, as a medical doctor and chemical engineer, he could
identify mold and did identify mold under the dashboard and on the carpet of
his SUV prior to taking it to the Lexus dealership. Alexander testified that
[m]old is by analogy like pollen in the spring and fall. It normally
causes little if any problems until the quantity of the spores released
increases to the point where one who is allergic to the spores begins
having reactions. This is what happened to [Alexander]. As the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 5 of 18
mold increased because of the air conditioning drain not being
connected to the evaporation case when [Alexander] would drive
with the air conditioning on and the windows up the mold spores
in the air caused physical injury. [Alexander] was allergic to the type
of mold in his vehicle. . . . [Alexander] then began being treated by
an internist and an ear nose and throat physician for the injuries
produced by this mold to which [Alexander] was hypersensitive and
allergic[.] . . . Without the necessity of any evidence it is common
knowledge that there are people who are allergic to penicillin, with
[Alexander] being one of those people.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 57-58) (emphasis added). Alexander also averred
that the removal of the carpet and dashboard from the SUV had stopped the
progression of his symptoms. Alexander agreed with Meineke in the Affidavit
that the types of mold found in his SUV “generally do not make people sick
unless they are exposed to a high concentration of the mold. [] Alexander as an
expert states that he was exposed to high concentrations of the mold and it
made him sick.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 59).
[9] On August 14, 2019, Meineke filed its Reply along with a motion to strike
portions of the Affidavit, namely, (1) Alexander’s references to a high
concentration of mold within the SUV; and (2) Alexander’s statements that the
types of mold found on the carpet were the cause of his symptoms. Meineke
argued that Alexander was estopped by his admission to Request No. 12 from
referring to any concentration of mold in the SUV because he had admitted that
he did not have a measurement of the mold level in the SUV before the carpet
and parts were removed. As to Alexander’s statements that the types of mold
found on the SUV’s carpet made him sick, Meineke argued that Alexander had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 6 of 18
testified at his deposition that he did not have an allergy to penicillin and that
he could not say, as a medical doctor, that his symptoms were caused by
Aspergillosis. Meineke argued that the challenged portions of the Affidavit
should be stricken because the non-movant in a summary judgment proceeding
may not create a genuine issue of material fact by submitting contradictory
testimony in an affidavit. Meineke quoted Alexander’s deposition testimony in
its Reply but did not attach copies of the deposition testimony, which had not
been filed with the trial court.
[10] On August 21, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Meineke’s motions to
strike and for partial summary judgment. At the beginning of the hearing, the
trial court stated on the record that the parties had reached an agreement to
strike “as to the one issue that we were dealing with” and then asked the parties
to present argument on the other issue. (Transcript Vol. I, p. 4). Counsel for
Meineke and Alexander then argued regarding whether the portions of the
Alexander Affidavit referring to a high concentration of mold in the SUV
should be stricken. The trial court took the motion to strike under advisement
and proceeded to hear argument on Meineke’s motion for partial summary
judgment.
[11] On September 9, 2019, the trial court denied Meineke’s partial summary
judgment motion without entering findings of fact or detailed conclusions
thereon. On September 20, 2019, the trial court held a final pre-trial hearing
where, upon inquiry by Meineke’s counsel, the trial court indicated that it had
not yet ruled on Meineke’s motion to strike portions of the Affidavit. Later that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 7 of 18
day, the trial court issued a written order striking the portions of the Affidavit
referring to a high concentration of mold in the SUV but ruling that references
by Alexander that the mold found on the SUV’s carpet was the cause of his
symptoms was admissible.
[12] On December 3, 2019, the trial court convened a two-day jury trial on
Alexander’s complaint. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Alexander and
awarded damages in the amount of $150,000. Meineke did not file a motion to
correct error following the entry of judgment.
[13] Meineke now appeals, and Alexander cross-appeals. Additional facts will be
provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[14] Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidence “shows that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). We review both the
grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and apply the same standard as
the trial court. Kerr v. City of South Bend, 48 N.E.3d 348, 352 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of
making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d
729, 731 (Ind. 2015). Meeting this standard is difficult for the moving party,
for, unlike federal practice where the moving party may prevail merely by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 8 of 18
showing that the party carrying the burden of proof at trial lacks evidence on a
necessary element, in Indiana, we require that the moving party affirmatively
“‘negate an opponent’s claim.’” Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind.
2014) (quoting Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118,
123 (Ind. 1994)). “Summary judgment is improper if the movant fails to carry
its burden, but if it succeeds, then the nonmoving party must come forward
with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Sargent, 27 N.E.3d at 731-32. “All disputed facts and doubts as to the existence
of material facts must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.” Kerr, 48
N.E.3d at 352. As the party appealing the trial court’s denial of summary
judgment, Meineke has the burden to persuade us that the trial court’s ruling
was improper. Ind. Mich. Power Co. v. Runge, 717 N.E.2d 216, 227 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1999).
[15] In addition, we note that the trial court did not enter findings of fact or detailed
conclusions of law in support of its judgment. Special findings are not required
in summary judgment proceedings and are not binding on appeal.
AutoXchange.com. Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 40, 48 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004). However, such findings offer this court valuable insight into the
trial court’s rationale for its review and facilitate appellate review. Id.
II. Causation
[16] Alexander’s complaint alleged that Meineke negligently repaired the SUV’s air
conditioning system, causing him personal injury. In order to prevail in a
negligence suit, a plaintiff must prove “three elements: (1) a duty on the part of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 9 of 18
the defendant in relation to the plaintiff; (2) a failure by the defendant to
conform its conduct to the requisite standard of care; and (3) an injury to the
plaintiff proximately caused by the failure.” Coleman v. Charles Court, LLC, 797
N.E.2d 775, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). To prevail on a motion for summary
judgment in a negligence suit, a defendant must show that the undisputed facts
negate at least one of these elements. Id.
[17] Here, Meineke argues that the undisputed facts showed no causation between
the mold in the SUV and Alexander’s reported symptoms. In toxic tort cases
such as this, causation is typically analyzed in terms of ‘generic’ and or
‘individual’ causation, both of which must be established by the plaintiff. 7-
Eleven v. Bowens, 857 N.E.2d 382, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “General, or
‘generic’ causation has been defined by courts to mean whether the substance at
issue had the capacity to cause the harm alleged, while ‘individual causation’
refers to whether a particular individual suffers from a particular ailment as a
result of exposure to a substance.” Id. An expert’s opinion is not sufficient to
show specific causation if it is based only upon a temporal relationship between
an event and a subsequent medical condition. Outlaw v. Erbrich Products Co., 777
N.E.2d 14, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. More specifically, we have
held that testimony by an expert witness that exposure to a noxious substance
caused a particular condition because the plaintiff was exposed and
subsequently had symptoms was insufficient to establish causation without an
analysis of the “level, concentration or duration of the exposure” to the
substance in question and without sufficiently accounting for “the possibility of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 10 of 18
alternative causes[.]” See id. (finding expert testimony insufficient in a chemical
exposure case).
[18] Pursuant to Indiana’s summary judgment standard, in order to prevail on its
motion, Meineke was required to affirmatively show that the mold found in the
SUV was not the cause of Alexander’s symptoms. See Hughley, 15 N.E.3d at
1004. In support of its motion for partial summary judgment, Meineke
designated evidence that Aspergillus and Penicillium were found in the SUV,
these molds do not normally produce illness unless a person is exposed to them
in high concentrations, and there were only moderate levels of Aspergillus and
Penicillium present in the SUV when testing was done after the parts and carpet
were removed and stored in conditions which would encourage mold growth.
With this evidence, Meineke met its burden of designating evidence tending to
show that the Aspergillus and Penicillium found in the SUV could not have been
the cause of Alexander’s symptoms because the evidence showed that the
Aspergillus and Penicillium did not exist on the parts or carpet at a concentration
sufficient to cause illness.
[19] Because Meineke made its initial showing negating causation, the burden then
shifted to Alexander to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact on
that element. See Sargent, 27 N.E.3d at 731-32. In response to Meineke’s
motion, Alexander designated the Affidavit in which he attempted to show
causation in three ways, namely through his averments that (1) he was allergic
to the Aspergillus and Penicillium found in the SUV; (2) as an expert, he found
that there was a high concentration of mold in the SUV which made him sick;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 11 of 18
and (3) circumstantial evidence of the timing of Meineke’s work on the SUV
and the onset of his symptoms showed causation. We conclude that none of
these responses created a genuine issue of material fact.
[20] As to his contention that he was allergic to Aspergillus and Penicillium,
Alexander had testified at his deposition that he was not allergic to penicillin
and that, as a medical doctor, he could not say that his symptoms were caused
by Aspergillus. Meineke contends that at the beginning of the August 21, 2019,
hearing, Alexander agreed to strike the averments in the Affidavit that he was
allergic to penicillin. Although the trial court referred to an agreement to strike
by the parties at the beginning of the hearing, the exact nature of that agreement
is not in the record. Therefore, we did not consider any agreement to strike that
testimony in rendering our decision. However, the Affidavit was squarely at
odds with Alexander’s prior deposition testimony that he was not allergic to
one allergen found in his SUV and the other allergen was not the source of his
symptoms. The non-movant in a summary judgment proceeding may not
create an issue of material fact merely by contradicting prior testimony. See
King v. Ebrens, 804 N.E.2d 821, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“[A] party cannot
create an issue of fact [to preclude summary judgment] by submitting an
affidavit that contradicts prior deposition testimony.”).
[21] Alexander argues that his deposition testimony that he was not allergic to
penicillin and Aspergillus did not cause his symptoms was not properly
designated to the trial court and is not part of the record on appeal. However,
any objection Alexander may have had to our consideration of the portions of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 12 of 18
his deposition quoted in Meineke’s Reply is waived because he did not object to
this material at the trial court level. See Wells Fargo Ins., Inc. v. Land, 932 N.E.2d
195, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (finding Wells Fargo’s challenge to deposition
excerpts contained in Land’s reply to its opposition to summary judgment to be
waived); see also Timberlake, Inc. v. O’Brien, 902 N.E.2d 843, 849 (Ind. Ct. App.
2009) (holding that the rule that a party may not raise an issue for the first time
on appeal applies equally to summary judgment proceedings). In addition,
Meineke’s Reply quoting the challenged deposition testimony was filed with the
trial court, and, therefore, contrary to Alexander’s assertions, Meineke has not
improperly included material in its Appendix that was not before the trial court.
[22] Neither did Alexander’s averment that, in his expert opinion, there was a high
concentration of mold in the SUV that made him sick create an issue to be
resolved by the jury. In his response to Request No. 12, Alexander had
admitted that he did not have a measurement of the alleged concentration or
level of mold in the SUV before the parts and carpet were removed, which
would have been the period of time during which he developed his symptoms.
Once Alexander made this admission, he was bound by it. See Gen. Motors
Corp., Chevrolet Motor Div. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 573 N.E.2d 885, 888 (Ind.
1991) (observing that matters admitted pursuant a Trial Rule 36(B) requests for
admissions are conclusively established). By averring that there was a high
concentration of mold in his SUV which made him ill, Alexander offered a
measurement of the concentration or level of mold in the SUV prior to the
removal of the parts and carpet, a measurement which had already been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 13 of 18
conclusively established did not exist. After Alexander admitted that the
measurement did not exist, there was nothing remaining for the jury to resolve
regarding that fact. In addition, as already noted, Alexander could not create a
genuine issue of material fact by contradicting himself. See King, 804 N.E.2d at
825.
[23] Alexander also averred in the Affidavit that he did not experience symptoms
before Meineke worked on his SUV, he did have symptoms after Meineke
worked on the SUV, and that, after having the air conditioning repaired by the
dealership and having the parts and carpet removed, his symptoms did not
progress. Alexander argues that this circumstantial evidence created a factual
issue on the element of causation, but this is precisely the type of opinion based
on a purely temporal relationship between an event and a subsequent medical
condition which this court has found to be inadequate to show causation. See
Hannan v. Pest Control Servs., Inc., 734 N.E.2d 674, 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)
(holding that Hannan’s causation experts’ testimony did not establish causation
where it was apparent they relied “on a mere temporal coincidence of the
pesticide application and the Hannans’ alleged and self-reported illness.”), trans.
denied.
[24] Alexander directs our attention to the trial court’s instructions to the jury that
he contends indicate that the jury’s verdict in his favor was not based on
speculation, and he argues that we should not reverse the trial court’s denial of
partial summary judgment because the matter had already proceeded to trial.
However, the trial court’s instructions to the jury have no relevance to our
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 14 of 18
consideration of summary judgment proceedings, and it has long been the rule
in Indiana that parties are allowed to appeal the denial of summary judgment,
even after a trial on the merits as taken place. See WESCO Distrib., Inc. v.
ArcelorMittal Ind. Harbor LLC, 23 N.E.3d 682, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“[T]he
denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewable on appeal even
following a trial on the merits.”), trans. dismissed; see also Keith v. Mendus, 661
N.E.2d 26, 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (collecting cases).
[25] Meineke made the required prima facie showing negating the element of
causation in Alexander’s claim which Alexander did not rebut with evidence
showing that a genuine issue of material fact remained for resolution by the
jury. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it denied Meineke’s motion for
partial summary judgment. We reverse the denial of partial summary judgment
and enter summary judgment for Meineke on Alexander’s personal injury
claims. The effect of our decision is to vacate the portion of the jury’s verdict
and damages award relating to Alexander’s personal injury claims. It is unclear
from the record before us how the jury’s damages award was apportioned
between Alexander’s personal injury and property damage claims. Therefore,
we remand for entry of a revised damages award consistent with this opinion.
In addition, our resolution of this issue renders it unnecessary for us to consider
the issue of the timing of trial court’s ruling on Meineke’s motion to strike, and,
in the interests of judicial economy, we do not address it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 15 of 18
CROSS-APPEAL
[26] On cross-appeal, Alexander argues that Indiana Trial Rule 56(E) mandates the
filing of a motion to correct error before appealing the denial of a summary
judgment motion and that Meineke’s failure to pursue a motion to correct error
was fatal to its appeal. Alexander, therefore, urges us to dismiss Meineke’s
appeal. Resolution of this issue will necessitate our examination and
interpretation of the Trial Rules, which are interpreted according to rules of
statutory construction. Lutheran Health Network of Ind., LLC v. Bauer, 139
N.E.3d 269, 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
[27] Trial Rule 56(E) provides in relevant part that a “[d]enial of summary judgment
may be challenged by a motion to correct errors after a final judgment or order
is entered.” Although recognizing that the word ‘may’ normally indicates that
an action is permissive and not mandatory, Alexander, argues that according to
the rules of statutory construction,
where, from a consideration of the entire statute, and its nature
and object, it appears that the intent of the legislature was to
impose a positive duty rather than a discretionary power, the
word “may” will be held to be mandatory.
(Cross-Appellant Br. p. 19) (citing 26 Ind. Law Encyc. Statutes § 66).
Therefore, Alexander’s argument continues, because motions to correct error
were a prerequisite to appeal at the time the Trial Rules were adopted, the use
of the word ‘may’ in T.R 56(E) should be construed as meaning that motions to
correct error are mandatory to perfect an appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 16 of 18
[28] We disagree. T.R. 59(A) provides that a motion to correct error is not a
prerequisite for appeal, except when a party seeks to address newly discovered
evidence or a claim that a jury’s verdict is excessive or inadequate. Neither of
those circumstances is implicated by this case. T.R. 59(A) also provides that
“[a]ll other issues and grounds for appeal appropriately preserved during trial
may be initially addressed in the appellate brief.” We are obliged by the rules of
statutory construction to read statutes concerning the same subject matter
together in a manner that harmonizes them and gives effect to each. Peoples
State Bank v. Benton Tp. of Monroe Cty., 28 N.E.3d 317, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Accepting Alexander’s interpretation of T.R. 56(E) would deprive T.R. 59(A)
of its effect. An interpretation that harmonizes both Rules and gives effect to
each is that a motion to correct error is not required before pursuing an appeal
of the denial of a motion for summary judgment. We accept the latter
interpretation and conclude that Meineke was not required to file a motion to
correct error prior to filing the instant appeal. Accordingly, we deny
Alexander’s cross-appeal.
CONCLUSION
[29] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that no genuine issue of fact existed
precluding partial summary judgment in favor of Meineke on Alexander’s
personal injury claims. We also conclude that Meineke was not required to file
a motion to correct error prior to initiating the instant appeal.
[30] Reversed, summary judgment entered for Meineke, and remanded for entry of
damages consistent with this opinion. Cross-appeal denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 17 of 18
Mathias, J. and Tavitas, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2963 | July 22, 2020 Page 18 of 18