Court Opinion

ID: 9714880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:47:54.746393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.176852
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority notes, the Board's actions destroyed the only means of access to the western portion of Moore's property. Clearly, the Board's actions impaired Moore's use of the property and, thus, damaged the property to a large extent. Damage to property is a loss for which the Tort Claims Act requires notice. See IND.CODE §§ 34-4-16.5-2(e), -{. Moore's failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Act was, therefore, fatal to its claim.
Moore also contends its claim for breach of contract was not subject to the notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act because the Act applies only to a claim or suit in tort. See IND.CODE § 34-4-16.5-1. However, regardless of whether the Board actually agreed to replace Moore's crossing but failed to do so, Moore's complaint sounded in tort rather than contract. The basis for Moore's complaint was the Board's damaging of its property, and any contract between Moore and the Board related to that damage. This Court should not allow Moore to change the theory of its case merely to avoid application of the Tort Claims Act. I would affirm the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment.