Alex M. Beeman

Represented a long term care facility in a judicial review of a decision finding them in violation of numerous regulations under the Indiana Administrative Code.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that our Church client was entitled to summary judgment after a volunteer was injured on its property, finding that the limited duty of care under Indiana Code § 34-31-7-2 applied because the church’s premises as a whole were used primarily for worship. Since there was no evidence of hidden dangers or intentional harm, the Court held that the Church was not liable.

Order dismissing arbitration granted in favor agribusiness client based on warranty limitation.

Motion to dismiss granted in favor of Police Department and Detective Sergeant in legal challenge to enforcement of Delta 8

A nationwide provider of training and continuing education courses to members of law enforcement and public safety alleged that our insurance agent failed to advise them of event cancellation insurance and failed to procure insurance to cover the cancellation of any the seminar/classes they had across the nation. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client based on the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff sued our client, a contract optometrist, for the Indiana Department of Correction, for delaying treatment of his eye infection and getting him prescription eyeglasses in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Without eyeglasses, Plaintiff is legally blind.  While Plaintiff did have an eye infection at one point, any evidence that the doctor knew about it was deemed inadmissible and thus there is nothing he could have done about it. Similarly, while there was delay in getting him eyeglasses, it was established that the doctor was only involved in preparing the prescription as opposed to order and procuring the eyeglasses. The Court granted summary judgment to our client by concluding there was any genuine issue of material fact as to whether our client was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

Grandview Solar Project, LLC (GSP), the entity behind what we will be the largest solar farm in Indiana (+$50 million investment), filed suit against our insured, Town of Grandview, for refusing to issue them an improvement location permit for the solar farm project. There was an issue with the original approval of the project and the Town of Grandview did not want to issue an improvement location permit which exceeded their corporate limits. The matter was settled between GSP and the Town of Grandview with the Town receiving funds over the course of the project to help with town projects in the future and with GSP getting the improvement location permit.  More than 80 citizens who opposed the solar farm project subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging that the improvement location permit was void, seeking to stop the construction of the permit.  Town of Grandview filed a motion to dismiss along with GSP which the Court granted.

Summary judgment entered in favor of Dollar General and Amber Ankney, and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

Obtained affirmance by the Indiana Supreme Court granting a dismissal of their client, a remediation contractor in Indianapolis. The contractor disposed of a 12-tray food-grade dehydrator–the subject of a product liability claims against the manufacturer which was the primary culprit in burning down a house on Halloween in 2019. The Indiana Supreme Court found that the circumstances did not implicate any duty on the remediation company to preserve the dehydrator. This was the first time that the Indiana Supreme Court has ever addressed whether third-party spoliation is a viable claim in Indiana. 

A remediation company in their work on a burnt down house disposed of a dehydrator that was the possible cause of the fire. After disposal and after looking to pursue a product liability action against the dehydrator manufacturer, the insurer for the homeowner brought suit against the remediation company for spoliation. The trial court dismissed the case finding the circumstances do not implicate third-party spoliation. The Court of Appeals in Indiana, after oral argument in May 2023, affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of Indiana vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and after oral argument (November 2023), affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the case against the remediation company in a 4-1 to decision.

In July 2021, a retaining wall collapsed on Plaintiff’s property. The wall was between the city sidewalk and Plaintiff’s house and he contend that it was the City of Bedford’s responsibility to repair it. Shortly after the collapse, Plaintiff emailed the city asking it to be repaired. The City of Bedford maintained it was his responsibility. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit but the trial court dismissed the case based on the failure of Disbro to put the City of Bedford on notice pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claim Act. Plaintiff appealed contending that he substantially complied with the Indiana Tort Claim Act, and even if he did not then he asserted a common law public nuisance claim and a violation of his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.

Motion to dismiss granted in favor of a city police department based on the Indiana Tort Claims Act’s immunity provision which provides immunity for enforcing or failing to enforce the law. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. 

A quarry owner and asphalt producer directed our blasting contractor client to conduct blasting within 20-25 feet of its asphalt plant, with knowledge that the blasting activity conducted there would present a risk to the plant. When the plant was damaged from blasting activities, it sued our client, claiming that the contractor should be strictly liable. We argued that strict liability should not apply to these circumstances, because the stated rationale for applying strict liability is to blasting cases is to protect innocent third parties who do not benefit from the blasting activities, which does not apply to these facts. The trial court agreed and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

Argued a first impression case in front of the Indiana Court of Appeals to uphold the trial court’s determination that strict liability does not apply to our client’s blasting activities, where blasting was conducted in a quarry at the direction of the quarry owner.

Summary judgment obtained in favor of retailer in a wrongful death case.

Motion to dismiss granted in favor of pretrial supervision and probation services company. Plaintiffs, proposed class representatives, sued our client in a seven-count complaint for numerous violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution as well as for conspiracy in this Section 1983 action. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Dismissal was filed and a preliminary injunction motion/hearing was held.

Motion to dismiss granted in a breach of duty case against a city involving the collapse of a city-built and owned retaining wall. Plaintiff failed to provide a tort claim notice, or substantially comply with the same requirements, pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

In October 2022, partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that our client did not, pursuant to its contract with the project owner, assume a duty of care to ensure the workplace safety of the project owner’s other contractors/sub-contractors or their employees.

In March 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition to transfer. The Supreme Court’s denial established that there was no merit to further review of the case because the Court of Appeals’ correctly decided it. This case established precedent for the entire state.

Plaintiff alleged that our optometrist client violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff has a presumptive diagnosis of Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 7 or “SCA7”, a serious inherited disease involving the degeneration of the central nervous system, for which there is no cure or meaningful treatment to stop the delay and progression of the disease.  Plaintiff argued that our client was deliberately indifferent for the incorrect eyewear prescriptions and for failing to have him genetically tested or treated for SCA7.

An inmate incarcerated in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana accused a contract optometrist of being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when he did not rule out stroke when the inmate presented to the optometrist with sudden vision loss and also did not refer him to the hospital. The inmate later suffered a stroke and accompanying damages. The trial dismissed the inmate's case on a Rule 12 motion by finding that a federal, Bivens action cannot be brought against a private entity or individual, even if it is a federal medical services contractor.

Partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that our client did not, pursuant to its contract with the project owner, assume a duty of care to ensure the workplace safety of the project owner’s other contractors/sub-contractors or their employees.

Defense of governmental liability claim for denial of zoning permits and civil rights violations.

Defense of correctional food service provider on claims that they violated the First and Eighth Amendment Rights by placing a substantial burden on inmate's religious practice by refusing to give him a vegan diet and created unconstitutional conditions of confinement by serving him an inadequately nutritious diet.

After obtaining summary judgment that a nurse was not deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs for violating hospital policy regarding discharge after surgery, the judgement was affirmed on appeal.

Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of jail doctor who was alleged to have been deliberately indifferent to an inmates serious medical needs by refusing to prescribe him a specific type of nerve medication as well as a desired pain medication.

Successfully obtained summary judgment for contractor of federal prison where she was alleged to have refused emergency care to an inmate based on lack of cause of action under Bivens or otherwise to assert the same.

After obtaining dismissal of negligent claims against an insurance agent/broker of disability insurance based contributory negligence pursuant to choice of law and statute of limitations, the judgment was affirmed on appeal after oral argument.

Successfully obtained partial summary judgment on “no pay, no play” statute establishing that the plaintiff is only entitled to economic damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

Successfully obtained summary judgment for life insurance agency for failing to procure and maintain life insurance for the plaintiff’s deceased husband based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of nurse who was alleged to have been deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs for violating hospital policy regarding discharge after surgery.

Obtained reversal of trial court’s order denying a motion for leave to file a belated motion to correct error after the intended movant was never given notice of the final dissolution decree. This case was done pro bono.

Defense of claim alleging negligence to properly maintain sidewalks and warn plaintiff of a dangerous condition.

After obtaining summary judgment on the issue of duty regarding a delivery truck driver for a contractor who alleged the insured negligently packed the cart to be delivered to its store, the judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal after oral argument.

Injured worker appealed negative award that she take nothing away from her application for benefits on the basis that her injuries did not arise out of or were incurred within the course of employment to the 7 members of the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of urologist for who was allegedly deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs in treating kidney stones on the basis that he was not a state actor acting under the color of law to be liable under Section 1983.

Obtained summary judgment on the issue of duty owed by the insured to a delivery truck driver who alleged the carts he was ordered to deliver were negligently packed.

Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance brokerage firm facing claims that they failed to procure, advise, and were otherwise negligent regarding a stop-loss insurance and laser policy for a governmental entity.

Successfully obtained partial summary judgment on a claim for bailment that a truck servicing center should be liable for tools and equipment that were stolen out of a locked truck on which they had just completed warranty servicing.