Opinion ID: 852597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Promissory Estoppel Against the Government

Text: Homeowners contend that IAA is estopped from declining to offer the terms of the Backs lawsuit settlement to all litigants from Hawthorne Ridge. The estoppel claim is based on the statements allegedly made by Airport officials at public meetings in 1997 and 1998. [20] Homeowners argue they are third-party beneficiaries of the alleged promises, even though they were not present, and should thus prevail under principles of promissory estoppel. IAA argues the Homeowners' absence from the meetings prevented them from receiving any promise, and therefore, without an underlying promise, the promissory estoppel claim must fail. Estoppel is not generally applicable against government entities for the actions of public officials. Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown County Area Plan Comm'n, 819 N.E.2d 55, 67 (Ind.2004); Muncie Indus. Revolving Loan Fund Bd. v. Ind. Constr. Corp., 583 N.E.2d 769, 771 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). As Judge Garrard aptly explained: If the government could be estopped, then dishonest, incompetent or negligent public officials could damage the interests of the public. At the same time, if the government were bound by its employees' unauthorized representations, then government, itself, could be precluded from functioning. Samplawski v. City of Portage, 512 N.E.2d 456, 459 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987). On the other hand, the general rule is subject to exception. [E]stoppel may be appropriate where the party asserting estoppel has detrimentally relied on [a] governmental entity's affirmative assertion or on its silence where there was a duty to speak. Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm'n, 758 N.E.2d 34, 39 (Ind.2001). But the government will not be estopped in the absence of clear evidence its agents made such representations. Story Bed & Breakfast, 819 N.E.2d at 67. Moreover, a party asserting promissory estoppel must establish five elements: (1) a promise by the promissor (2) made with the expectation that the promisee will rely thereon (3) which induces reasonable reliance by the promisee (4) of a definite and substantial nature and (5) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. First Nat'l Bank of Logansport v. Logan Mfg. Co., Inc., 577 N.E.2d 949, 954 (Ind. 1991). Homeowners have not demonstrated adequate grounds for any exception to the general rule precluding estoppel. First, Homeowners fail to demonstrate clear evidence that a promise was made. The public statements made by IAA officials are more akin to a statement of policy than a promise. Even assuming arguendo that the statements were promises, it is clear they referred to the operation of IAA's land use programs, not to settlement of future litigation. Second, Homeowners fail to establish detrimental reliance. While they claim they relied on IAA's alleged promises in refraining from joining the Backs lawsuit, such reliance is not detrimental. Homeowners have always retained the right to file their own action on similar grounds. Furthermore, Homeowners suffer no prejudice from their alleged reliance. IAA continues to offer the land use programs to property owners to assuage the effects of the Airport's operations on its neighbors. IAA has treated Homeowners differently only in its unwillingness to offer them the Backs lawsuit settlement terms. Thus, the only detriment Homeowners have supposedly suffered is that they could not get for free what the Backs plaintiffs got by initiating litigation. The general rule precluding estoppel against the government applies to Homeowners' promissory estoppel claim. The trial court properly gave judgment to IAA.