« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court requires reasons for setting aside a verdict | Main | Ind. Decisions - More on Court of Appeals opinion on Carmel regulation of gravel-mining »

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Appeals Court decides two, including Carmel gravel-mining case

In City of Carmel, Indiana v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a 23-page opinion, Judge Robbs writes:

The City of Carmel, Indiana, (“Carmel”) appeals the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (“Martin Marietta”), enjoining enforcement of Carmel’s Ordinance No. D-1686-04 As Amended: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, to Regulate Mining Operations within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Carmel (“Amended Ordinance”). Carmel disputes that Martin Marietta established the factors necessary for issuance of a temporary injunction by the trial court. As a matter of first impression, we decide that Carmel’s governmental immunity from damages liability results in irreparable harm due to the lack of an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, Carmel may not invoke its general police power to circumvent the planning process as delineated by the legislature. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and we affirm.

Issue. Carmel raises two issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Carmel from enforcing the Amended Ordinance. * * *

Conclusion. Martin Marietta established that it would suffer irreparable harm due to inadequate remedies at law, that it had a reasonable probability of success on the merits, that a balancing of the harms supported issuance of a preliminary injunction, and that the public interest would not be thereby disserved. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Amended Ordinance. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In Estate of Dora W. Powers, a 14-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that as Indiana law now stands, an economic benefit is required for the existence of an insurable interest in the life of another. Here, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly found that John had an insurable interest in the life of the Decedent, his mother. However, the trial court’s determination that John possessed such an insurable interest does not affect the outcome of this case in light of the inapplicability of I.C. § 27-1-15.6-31 to the facts at hand.
I found the historical discussion of insuring the life of another in this opinion quite interesting. For example: "However, the necessity of an insurable interest in human life arises where a person takes out an insurance policy for his or her own benefit on the life of another. * * * With its roots in public policy, this long-standing rule was initiated as a means to forbid wagering contracts on human life."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 5, 2006 10:40 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions