Jose Zambrana v. Javier Armenta (12/30/04 IndCtApp) [Torts]
Friedlander, Judge
On November 10, 2003, after a two-day bench trial, the trial court found Jose Zambrana negligent for injuries sustained by Javier Armenta as the result of a shooting outside a bar Zambrana owned. The trial court assessed compensatory damages against Zambrana in the amount of $850,000.00. Zambrana presents several issues for review:State of Indiana v. Darrell Brown (12/30/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
1. Did the trial court err in finding Zambrana liable for Armenta’s injuries?
2. Did the trial court err in its apportionment of fault under Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act?
3. Were the damages assessed against Zambrana excessive?
We affirm. * * *
DARDEN, J., and BAKER, J., concur.
Appellant-Plaintiff, the State of Indiana, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Count I, intimidation, Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1, an act which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult, as charged to Appellee-Defendant, D.B. We reverse and remand.Kiel Brothers Oil Company v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (12/30/04 IndCtApp) [Statutory Construction]The State raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: whether the trial court’s dismissal of the intimidation charge against D.B. on jurisdictional grounds was erroneous when the charge was connected to the carjacking charge already pending against the juvenile defendant. * * *
Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred by dismissing the intimidation charge against D.B. on jurisdictional grounds when the charge was connected to the carjacking charge already pending against the juvenile defendant pursuant to I.C. § 31-30-1-4(a)(12). We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
CRONE, J., and ROBB, J., concur.
Case Summary. Appellant-Plaintiff Kiel Brothers Oil Company, Incorporated (“Lessee”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) and the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (“Attorney General”). We affirm.Posted by Marcia Oddi at December 30, 2004 02:09 PMIssue. Lessee raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred by affirming the judgment of the Office of Environmental Adjudication (“OEA”), which concluded that Lessee was not entitled to third-party indemnification pursuant to Indiana Code Section 13-23-9-3. * * *
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 13-23-9-3, to receive money from the ELTF, Lessee must submit a request for indemnification of a third party. Here, the alleged third party, i.e., Lessor, was a first-party claimant pursuant to Indiana Code Section 13-23-9-2, involving the same parties, contamination, and remediation expenses. Lessor cannot simultaneously be a first-party claimant and an “outside party” to the underlying circumstances of the present dispute. Because Lessor was a first-party claimant, it is not a third party for purposes of Indiana Code Section 13-23-9-3 and, thus, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment.Moreover, we note that, pursuant to the lease agreement, Lessee paid the annual registration fees for the UST’s to the ELTF. During the leasehold period, Lessor did not pay any fees to the ELTF. Thus, for the three UST’s that are the subject of this dispute, the ELTF received only one annual registration fee, per UST in question, from Lessee. As such, the ELTF should only be responsible for reimbursing either Lessor or Lessee—i.e., the owner or the operator—for the remediation costs of the petroleum contamination.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of IDEM and the ELTF. Affirmed.
SHARPNACK, J., and MAY, J., concur.