Court Opinion

ID: 9504890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:59:10.665817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:10.607742
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice.
The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund challenges a final judgment in the sum of $278,377.55 against it on grounds that the judgment includes sums for expenses of administration, contingent attorney fees, and loss of services that are not recoverable under the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death Statute (“AWDS”), Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2. The Court of Appeals rejected the Fund’s arguments and affirmed the trial court. Ind. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Brown, 934 N.E.2d 168 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). We grant transfer and, agreeing with the Court of Appeals and the trial court, now hold that such damages may be sought under the AWDS.
Following the settlement of the plaintiffs medical malpractice claims against several medical care providers for the alleged wrongful death of the plaintiffs sister, Barbara J. Frieden, an unmarried adult without dependents, the plaintiff initiated this action against the Patient’s Compensation Fund for the damages that exceeded the $250,000 future value of her settlement with the medical providers, pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The Fund did not dispute the individual amounts sought but only the availability of damages under the AWDS for contingent attorney fees, litigation costs, estate administration expenses, and loss of services. The Fund also requested application of the $250,000 set-off reflecting the value of the plaintiffs settlement with the health care providers. The trial court rejected the Fund’s contentions regarding the scope of damages permitted under the AWDS and awarded the plain*824tiff the full amount requested but applied the set-off. The Fund’s appeal challenges only the trial court’s ruling that damages under the AWDS could include expenses of administration, contingent attorney fees, and loss of services. The Fund’s argument treats all of these classes of damages together and does not make any particularized argument challenging the recovera-bility of any one item of the awarded damages.
This Court’s decision today in McCabe v. Comm’r, Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 949 N.E.2d 816 (Ind.2011), determined that a plaintiffs attorney fees may be recoverable under the AWDS. In Hematology-Oncology of Ind., P.C. v. Fruits, 950 N.E.2d 294 (Ind.2011), also decided today, we held that the AWDS also permits a plaintiff to seek recovery of litigation expenses. As to the plaintiffs claim for loss of services in this case, the Fund makes no argument urging that such damages be treated any differently than attorney fees and litigation expenses.
In considering this issue, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that damages in actions under Indiana’s wrongful death statutes must be compensatory in nature. Brown, 934 N.E.2d at 176-77; see Durham ex rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul Int’l, 745 N.E.2d 755, 758-63 (Ind.2001); Estate of Kuba v. Ristow Trucking Co., Inc., 508 N.E.2d 1, 2-3 (Ind.1987). The court in Brown declared, “[Ajttorney fees, probate administration costs, and litigation costs are compensatory damages that remedy actual pecuniary losses. Therefore, we find no compelling reason why these damages should not be allowed.” Brown, 934 N.E.2d at 177. As to loss of services, the court observed:
As a practical matter, it may be difficult for a nondependent parent to prove that loss of an adult child’s services resulted in pecuniary loss. In this case, the Fund has not contested that Frieden’s parents suffered a pecuniary loss from the loss of her services, but instead has argued that such damages are categorically unavailable under the AWDS. We cannot agree. Loss of services, when proved, would constitute a pecuniary loss of the type contemplated by the AWDS.
Id. at 178. The Court of Appeals is correct.
Transfer is granted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court awarding damages for expenses of administration, attorney fees, and loss of services under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.
SULLIVAN and DAVID, JJ., concur. SHEPARD, C.J., dissents with separate opinion in which RUCKER, J., concurs.