I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CT-354

Bayer Corporation, et al.,

Appellants-Defendants,

–v–

Rene Leach, et al.,

Appellees-Plaintiffs.

Decided: June 12, 2020

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D14-1803-CT-12218

The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

No. 19A-CT-625

Per Curiam Opinion

All Justices concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Per curiam.

The plaintiffs, 36 women, filed a product-liability suit against the 

defendants, Bayer Corporation and some related entities, alleging

multiple claims related to a medical device that Bayer manufactured.

Later, Bayer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Indiana 

Rule of Trial Procedure 12(C). The trial court denied Bayer’s motion but

certified it for interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals 

affirmed the trial court. Instead of addressing the legal viability of all the 

plaintiffs’ claims, however, it addressed the legal viability of only one.

Concluding the Court of Appeals should have addressed the merits of all

the claims, we grant transfer and remand to the Court of Appeals to

address the viability of each claim.

Facts and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs allege that Bayer violated both Indiana’s Product Liability 

Act and other state and federal laws by covering up adverse information 

and by misleading federal regulators, the public, and the plaintiffs. The 

plaintiffs’ allegations include that Bayer committed numerous wrongful 

acts, including defective manufacturing, false and misleading marketing 

and promotions, maintaining defective warnings and labels, and 

negligently and improperly training physicians. The plaintiffs also allege 

that Bayer failed to meet certain regulatory obligations, including failing 

to timely and properly update warnings and labels, failing to report and 

respond to adverse events, failing to report negative clinical studies, and 

failing to perform post-market studies and surveillance.

Responding to these allegations, Bayer filed a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their 

claims and that their claims were preempted by the Medical Device 

Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The trial court 

summarily denied Bayer’s motion. At Bayer’s request, the trial court 

certified its interlocutory order, and the Court of Appeals accepted 

jurisdiction. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B).
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 Page 3 of 5

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs’ 

manufacturing defect claim was sufficiently pleaded and not preempted 

by federal law. Bayer Corp. v. Leach, 139 N.E.3d 1127, 1134–35 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2019), vacated. The Court of Appeals acknowledged other legal 

theories and factual allegations in the pleadings but concluded that it need 

not address those as it had identified a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. Id. at 1135.

Having granted transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals 

opinion, see App. R. 58(A), we remand to the Court of Appeals to consider 

whether Bayer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly 

denied as to all the plaintiffs’ claims. 

Discussion

Indiana is a notice pleading state and requires that pleadings contain

only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief[.]” Ind. Trial Rule 8(A)(1). Plaintiffs need not “set out in 

precise detail the facts upon which the claim is based, [but they] must still 

plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.” Trail 

v. Boys & Girls Club of Nw. Indiana, 845 N.E.2d 130, 135 (Ind. 2006). This 

means that although “highly desirable,” a precise legal theory in a 

pleading—a principle connecting a claim to the relief sought—“is not 

required.” State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228, 231, 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973).

The purpose of notice pleading is to inform a defendant of a claim’s 

operative facts so the defendant can “prepare to meet it.” Noblesville 

Redevelopment Comm’n v. Noblesville Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 674 N.E.2d 558, 564 

(Ind. 1996) (quoting Jack H. Friedenthal, et al., Civil Procedure § 5.7, at 253 

(2nd Ed. 1993)). Although a single complaint often contains multiple 

claims, claims requiring different “research, evidence, arguments, and 

litigation strategy” require discrete factual allegations. Noblesville 

Redevelopment Comm’n, 674 N.E.2d at 564. 

The sufficiency of the pleadings’ claims and defenses is tested by a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings under Trial Rule 12(C). KS&E Sports 

v. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892, 898 (Ind. 2017). In reviewing a motion under
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 Page 4 of 5

12(C), a court must “base [its] ruling solely on the pleadings” and “accept 

as true the material facts alleged in the complaint.” Id. (quoting Veolia 

Water Indianapolis, LLC v. National Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1, 5 (Ind. 2014)). 

A court should grant the motion “only when it is clear from the face of the 

pleadings that the plaintiff cannot in any way succeed under the operative 

facts and allegations made therein.” Noblesville Redevelopment Comm’n, 674 

N.E.2d at 562; Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728, 731 (Ind. 

2010). So when a pleaded claim provides no circumstances in which relief 

can be granted, there is no need to put either the parties or the court 

through costly and time-consuming litigation. 

Here, like in most complex litigation, the plaintiffs allege several sets of 

operative facts, amounting to several discrete claims. The Court of 

Appeals addressed the legal viability of only one of those claims: defective 

manufacturing. The Court of Appeals did not analyze the remaining ones, 

reasoning that any viable claim preserves the entire complaint. But that is 

not correct. In a complaint with multiple claims, the viability of a single 

claim does not immunize a separate, deficient claim from judgment on the 

pleadings. When analyzing pleadings for Rule 12(C) purposes, Indiana 

courts are required to address the viability of each claim presented, 

disposing of only unviable ones. See, e.g., KS&E Sports, 72 N.E.3d at 907–08

(finding judgment on the pleadings was proper for some, but not all, of 

the alleged claims).

Here, the Court of Appeals failed to address the viability of each claim 

presented in the pleadings. We remand to the Court of Appeals to 

consider the viability of each of the plaintiffs’ claims.

Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 Page 5 of 5

A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N TS

Mary Nold Larimore

Robert A. Jorczak

Ice Miller LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

Erika L. Maley

Christopher A. Eiswerth

Sidley Austin LLP

Washington, District of Columbia

A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E ES

Gregory J. Bubalo

Kate A. Dunnington

Bubalo Law PLC

Louisville, Kentucky

Lee C. Christie

Katherine A. Franke

Cline Farrell Christie Lee & Bell, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana