• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Environmental Law / Dismissal of Inverse Condemnation Pleadings Premature

Dismissal of Inverse Condemnation Pleadings Premature

February 9, 2018 //  by Melissa De Groff

A property owner’s inverse condemnation complaint against Duke Energy properly states a claim on its face, and the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) was erroneous, according to the Indiana Supreme Courts in Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

Plaintiff Bellwether owns real property in Bloomington on which Duke Energy has a recorded 10-foot wide utility easement. Bellwether filed an inverse condemnation claim against Duke in 2015, alleging Duke’s clearing and maintenance of a 23-foot wide swath of Bellwether’s property constituted an uncompensated taking for public use of the additional 13-foot wide portion of the property.

Duke filed a motion to dismiss the claim under T.R. 12(B)(6), asserting that Duke was bound by a National Electrical Safety Code provision the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission incorporated by reference in 2002. That safety code required the wider easement, and thus Duke asserted Bellwether’s 2015 claim was barred by the six year statute of limitations. The trial court granted Duke’s motion to dismiss on that basis, and Bellwether appealed.

After the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, Duke Energy sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which also reversed the trial court, but on other grounds.

The Supreme Court noted dismissals based on a failure to state a claim must be based solely on the allegations contained in the complaint, and may not incorporate any defenses. The Court found Bellwether’s complaint on its face alleged only that Duke Energy “currently” uses a 23-foot easement, but not when that use started. As a result, the complaint did not establish that the statute of limitations had expired, and thus dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) was premature.

In its guidance for remand, the Supreme Court noted that although citizens are presumed to know the law and comply with it, the sources of such laws must be accessible to those bound by such laws. In this case, the IURC incorporated by reference 2002 safety standards Duke Energy is required to comply with. The Court found the administrative code “amendment was available free on-line in the Indiana Register, but the Safety Code was not.” Slip.op. at 7. Neither of the parties included a copy of the safety code in the appellate record, and the Court was unable to independently obtain one from the IURC. In short, the law Bellwether is charged with knowledge of is not readily available, and thus problematic.

The Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Bellwether’s complaint against Duke Energy as premature based on the current state of the record, and remanded for further proceedings

Category: Blog, Business Litigation, Environmental LawTag: Melissa McCarty

Previous Post: « Personnel Decisions:  Don’t We Have To Treat All Employees “The Same?”
Next Post: The Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit is back! »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    RECENT POSTS

    Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

    The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

    The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

    We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

    2 New Attorneys, 1 Paralegal Join KGR

    KGR is thrilled to start the New Year with two new attorneys Wes …

    KGR Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against City of Bloomington in Free Speech Case

    Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its local chapter on the Indiana …

    KGR Attorneys File Lawsuit Against USA Track & Field to Advance Athlete Health & Safety

    KGR’s Sports and Entertainment Law Team, led by KGR Partner Bill …

    Footer

    Indianapolis Office

    Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

    (317) 692-9000
    (317) 264-6832
    Directions

    Connect with us!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Newsletter

    Select list(s) to subscribe to


    By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

    Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in