Opinion ID: 854070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Description of the Class Claim

Text: It was observed at oral argument in this Court that a class action under these circumstanceswhere the person making the claim asserts a class claimraises the question of how vague the description of the claim can be and still satisfy the Act. If notice pleading in this respect were taken too far, the purpose of the statute would be defeated because the public entity or official could only hazard guesses as to its possible exposure or the nature of the claim. A categorical rule as to specificity is undesirable if not impossible; the adequacy of the notice will inevitably depend on the particular facts. The statute demands only the circumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice. IND.CODE § 34-13-3-10 (1998). It requires only a short and plain statement of this information. The specific objections that the defendants raise are not fatal. They point out that the notice, by itself, did not permit IPS to quantify its exposure to the class with precision or even to identify the class members without resort to records in the hands of class members or AFG. This risk of unquantifiable damages is often presented in more conventional lawsuits where, for example, the dollar value of a personal injury claim is unknown and may vary over a wide range based on judgment and even on future eventssuch as whether the plaintiff survives or not. The plaintiffs here included their best guess of aggregate damages of $500,000. That is good enough. And, as already noted, the identity of the class members is not known at the time the notice is filed and therefore is not required.