Source: https://www.smithlaw.bz/dealing-with-non-party-defenses.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:03:05+00:00

Document:
In our judgment, plaintiffs' counsel should take an offensive posture with regard to nonparty defenses that are asserted by defendants and aggressively seek to force defense counsel to properly identify nonparties in a timely manner and move to strike inappropriate nonparty defenses.
The nonparty defense is a powerful tool because the claimant loses the percentage of his/her damages that equals any percentage of fault that is attributed to a nonparty. Therefore, defendants search for individuals and entities to name as nonparties to reduce their liability to a plaintiff. Defense counsel frequently name nonparties whose legal liability to the plaintiff is marginal (or nonexistent) and whose percentage of fault is small at best. Once a defendant pleads a nonparty defense, the plaintiff is then put in the position of making a tactical decision as to whether to add the nonparty as a defendant in the case.
I.C. 34-4-33-10(b) provides that the burden of proving a nonparty defense rests with the defendant, who must affirmatively plead the defense. If the plaintiff adds the nonparty as a defendant in the case, the plaintiff then bears the burden of proof with regard to that party's fault. Therefore, if a nonparty's fault is slight and/or the nonparty's liability is marginal, plaintiff's counsel may decide that the better strategy is not to sue the nonparty. The purpose of this article is to suggest steps that should be taken to identify nonparty defenses, determine whether asserted nonparty defenses are valid, and to eliminate invalid nonparty defenses from a case.
In view of I.C. 34-4-33-10(c), plaintiffs counsel should generally file suit at least 150 days prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. However, that is not always possible -- as in the situation where the plaintiff does not hire counsel until shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitiations. In addition, there are situations in which defendants name nonparties who plaintiff's counsel decides to sue, who then name other nonparties less than 150 days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In such situations, pursuant to I.C. 34-4-33-10(c), plaintiff's counsel should ask the court to alter the time limitations for pleading nonparty defenses.
1. The incident out of which this lawsuit arises was a motor vehicle crash in which the Plaintiff and Defendant were involved on October 24, 1994. The Plaintiff is making a claim for personal injuries which she sustained in that crash.
2. Pursuant to I.C. 34-1-2-2, the applicable statute of limitations relative to the Plaintiff's claim is two (2) years after the date of the crash. Therefore, the statute of limitations expires on October 24, 1996.
3. The Plaintiff initiated this case by filing her Complaint for Damages against the Defendant on July 31, 1996.
4. Defense counsel entered an Appearance on behalf of the Defendant and filed a Motion for Extension of Time to answer the Plaintiff's Complaint and the Interrogatories which were filed simultaneously with the Plaintiff's Complaint, requesting that the Defendant be given until October 7, 1996 to file an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint and to answer the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff.
(2) giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity to add the nonparty as an additional defendant to the action before the expiration of the period of limitation applicable to the claim.
6. The Plaintiff believes that this crash has been fully investigated by representatives of the Defendant. Thus, the facts of the crash are known to all parties.
7. If requested by defense counsel, the Plaintiff will make herself available for deposition prior to October 7, 1996, the date on which the Defendant's Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint is due.
8. The Plaintiff requests that the Court alter the time limitations contained in I.C. 34-4-33-10(c) and issue an Order, requiring the Defendant to plead any nonparty defenses within the enlargement of time that has been granted to her to answer the Plaintiff's Complaint (i.e., October 7, 1996), in order to permit the Plaintiff to add any named nonparties as additional Defendants in this action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitiations.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court order the Defendant to plead any nonparty defenses within the enlarement of time granted to her to answer the Plaintiff's Complaint (i.e., October 7, 1996), and for all other just and proper relief in the premises.
Comes now the Plaintiff, Susan Clark, by counsel, and having filed her Petiton To Alter Time Limitations For Pleading Nonparty Defenses, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, now finds that said Petition should be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the time limitations set out in I.C. 34-4-33-10(c) are altered in order to allow the Plaintiff to add any nonparties named by the Defendant as additional Defendants in this action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Defedant is therefore ordered to plead any nonparty defenses within the enlargement of time granted to her to answer the Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages (i.e., October 7, 1996). The plainitff shall be entitled to join any nonparties named by the Defendant by amending her Complaint.
SO ORDERED this ________ day of September, 1996.
Another tactic employed by defense counsel is to allege in an Answer to a Plaintiff's Complaint that "Plaintiff's alleged damages, if any, were caused in full or in part by a nonparty" or that or that "the Defendant reserves the right to name nonparties who caused or contributed to cause the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages when such nonparties are identified." Plaintiffs counsel should take affirmative action to combat such tactics -- by forcing defense counsel to disclose the name of any nonparties or forfeit the nonparty defense.
Indiana's Comparative Fault Statute clearly requires that nonparties be specifically identified by proper name. A generic identification is not sufficient.
(2) the amount of the verdict against each defendant.
In Cornell v. Harbison Excavating, Inc.(5), the Indiana Supreme Court held that a Defendant pleading a nonparty defense under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act must specifically name the nonparty. In addition, the Court held that a motion to strike is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a nonparty defense that fails to specifically name an alleged nonparty.
In Cornell, the Plaintiffs sued an excavating company, alleging that it had been negligent in the storage of drainage and sewer pipe which the Plaintiffs' vehicle struck when it swerved into a ditch to avoid hitting a dog that had run into the roadway. In its Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the excavating company named "the unknown owner of the dog" as a nonparty. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike that nonparty defense, asserting that in order to constitute a valid nonparty defense, the nonparty must be specifically named. The trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to strike and the Defendant appealed. Both the Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Legislative intent is foremost in construing any statute. Eilbacher, Comparative Fault and the Nonparty Tortfeasor, 17 Ind.L.Rev. 903, 924. These statutes as presently written, coupled with their legislative history, clearly evidence the legislature's intent to place the burden of pleading and proving the specific name of the nonparty on the defendant. Thus, by clear implication, the legislature intended that a claimant's recovery is not to be diminished by the percentage of fault of unidentified nonparties.
The thrust of the amendment [the present Ind.Code Sec. 34-4-33-5(a)(1)] is that in order for a culpable nonparty to be assigned fault by the trier of fact, such person must be subject to liability by civil action. Id. This amendment illustrates the legislature's intention that a culpable nonparty cannot be assigned fault unless the nonparty is subject to civil liability in some forum. Id. An unidentified nonparty is not subject to liability.
In Eilbacher, supra, the writer commented on our Act, opining, "[i]f defendant seeks to diminish his own contribution to damages by proof of fault of the nonparty, the defendant should offer the name of the nonparty tortfeasor. The Act sacrificed a true apportionment of damages among all tortfeasors in favor of maximizing recovery by the injured plaintiff where the nonparty cannot be identified." Id. 530 N.E.2d at 773.
We concur with this view. Moreover, the plain meaning and clear language of section 6 unmistakenly require the disclosure of "the name of the nonparty", not merely a generic identification. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the express statutory language.
"Plaintiff's alleged damages, if any, were caused in full or in part by a nonparty."
Don, I have a problem with this defense in that it does not specifically identify a nonparty by name. As you know, under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, a defendant is required to disclose the name of any alleged nonparty, rather than merely giving a generic identification. I enclose a copy of the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Cornell Harbison Excavating, Inc. v. May (1989), Ind., 546 N,E.2d 1186, for your reference in this regard.
As you are aware, the Court signed an Order on August 5, 1996, requiring the Defendant to name any nonparties on or before September 17, 1996. The purpose of that Order is to permit the Plaintiff to add (should it be appropriate) any nonparties as Defendants before the statute of limitations expires on October 7, 1996. However, the nonparty defense that you have asserted does not permit us to do that.
Please inform us immediately as to whether there are any actual nonparties in this matter. If there are no actual nonparties, please withdraw your nonparty defense before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
"6. The Plaintiff's alleged damages, if any, were caused in full or in part by a nonparty."
The basis for this Motion is that the Defendant has failed to disclose the proper name of the nonparty as required by I.C. 34-4-33-6 and the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Cornell Harbison Excavating, Inc. v. May (1989), Ind., 546 N.E.2d 1186.
In Cornell v. Harbison Excavating, Inc.(7), the Indiana Supreme Court held that a Defendant pleading a nonparty defense under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act must specifically name the nonparty. In addition, the Court held that a motion to strike is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a nonparty defense that fails to specifically name an alleged nonparty.
We likewise concur with the determination of the Court of Appeals that a motion to strike pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 12(F) was an appropriate mechanism to question a nonparty defense that failed to specifically name the alleged nonparty. 546 N.E.2d 1186, 1187.
In Kveton v. Siade (1990), Ind.App., 562 N.E.2d 461, Allan Kveton made a claim for personal injuries which he sustained in an automobile collision with the Defendant. At the time of the crash, the Defendant was attempting to turn north onto Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, from a private driveway. To do so, she had to make a left turn and cross two lanes of southbound traffic. According to the Defendant, a man driving a green pick-up truck approached in the right southbound lane and stopped to allow her room to cross the southbound lanes in front of him. He then looked to his left to check for traffic approaching behind him, turned back, smiled, and motioned for the Defendant to proceed. When the Defendant pulled out onto Main Street, she collided with the Plaintiff's car in the left southbound lane.
By directing the jury's attention to the unnamed nonparty's actions and telling them that they might consider whether such actions were the proximate cause of the collision, the court was necessarily inviting them to determine the fault of an unnamed nonparty. That is precisely what the statute, as interpreted by Cornell Harbison, forbids. 562 N.E.2d 461, 464.
In the present case, the attempted naming of a nonparty by a generic identification only is improper and the nonparty defense asserted in the Defendant's Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint should be striken.
Comes now the Plaintiff, by counsel, and having filed her Motion To Strike Nonparty Defense, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, now finds that said Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the nonparty defense asserted in rhetorical paragraph 6 of the Defendant's Answer, to wit: "Plaintiff's alledged damages, if any, were caused in full or in part by a nonparty", is hereby striken, and the jury will not be permitted to consider the fault of any nonparties in this case.
Comes now the Plaintiff, Steven Barnes, by counsel, and pursuant to Trial Rule 33 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, tenders the following Interrogatories to the Defendant, Richard Rhoades, to be answered under oath, fully and without evasion, within thirty (30) days.
e. The percentages of fault that you contend should be attrributed to each individual or entity.
e. The identity of all individuals upon whose statements or opinions you rely for that contention or which you allege suports that contention or whom you expect to testify regarding that contention.
"The Plaintiff's damages allegedly sustained were caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by reason of the negligence of a "nonparty", to-wit: Trailmobile Corporation".
g. Identify and describe each and every document and item of tangible evidence that you contend supports this Affirmative Defense; describe the information contained in each document or illustrated by each item of tangible evidence; and, identify the individual or entitiy who currently has possession, custody or control of each document or item of tangible evidence.
I.C. 34-4-33-6 was not amended and there is nothing to suggest that the amendment of the definition of "nonparty" changes the Supreme Court's holding in Cornell Harbison Excavating, Inc. v. May(11), requiring that any nonparty be specifically identified by name.
I.C. 34-4-33-1 through I.C. 34-4-33-14.
2. I.C. 34-4-33-5(a)(1) and I.C. 34-4-33-5(b)(1).
3. I.C. 34-4-33-5(a)(3) and I.C. 34-4-33-(b)(3).
4. I.C. 34-4-33-5(a)(4) and I.C. 34-4-33-5(b)(4).
5. (1989), Ind., 546 N.E.2d 1186.
6. 546 N.E.2d 1186, 1187.
7. (1989), Ind., 546 N.E.2nd 1186.
10. (1996), Ind.App., 665 N.E.2d 7.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.