February 1, 2011
Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision ruling that Indiana has personal jurisdiction over an Ohio attorney who represented an Ohio resident regarding an accident that took place in Indiana in
Foley v. Schwartz, Case No. 78A04-1005-CT-305. In doing so, the Court identified a set of minimum contacts that justified the exercise of specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state attorney.
less..
In this case, Foley, a resident of Ohio, was riding on an ATV operated by Bastin on property owned by Collins in Switzerland County, Indiana. On the property, an old culvert pipe had been left after it had previously been replaced in 2006 or early 2007 by the Switzerland County Highway Department, and "field grass had grown around the culvert pipe," which obstructed its ability to be seen. At one point while operating the ATV, Bastin came upon a culvert pipe and suddenly steered the ATV in an attempt to avoid striking it, causing the ATV to tip-over, severely injuring Foley. Foley hired Schwartz, an Ohio attorney, for representation in connection with the ATV accident. Schwartz warned her that he was not an Indiana attorney and would have to work with an Indiana attorney, if the action needed to be brought in Indiana.
Schwartz contacted the adjuster for Collin's insurance provider, who was officed in Indianapolis, for an explanation of the type of insurance and policy limits. He also sent letters to multiple Indiana attorneys, asking if they were interested in joining as cocounsel on Foley's behalf and proposing a fee-splitting arrangement. In addition, Schwartz contacted the County Highway Department, the County attorney, and a contractor who may have performed work on the culvert.
About a year after the accident, Schwartz spoke with an Indiana attorney, who informed Schwartz about the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Soon thereafter, Foley terminated Schwartz's employment as her attorney. Foley then filed a complaint against Schwartz, Collins, Bastin, and others. Schwartz moved to dismiss the action for a lack of personal jurisdiction under
Rule 12(B)(2). Over Foley's objections, the trial court granted that motion.
On appeal, the Court primarily addressed Foley's argument that Indiana had specific jurisdiction over Schwartz. It held that, for the purposes of making that determination against an attorney in the context of a legal malpractice case, the "continuous representation doctrine" should apply. In other words, the Court would look to all facts up until Foley's termination of Schwartz's representation when deciding whether those contacts provided specific jurisdiction, rather than the facts up until the Tort Claims Notice should have been filed. The Court determined that the facts described above were sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana to confer specific personal jurisdiction.
The Court then turned to determining whether it is reasonable for Schwartz to be haled into an Indiana court. It concluded that it was, dismissing each of Schwartz's arguments to the contrary.
After balancing all the factors, we conclude that Schwartz has failed to persuade us that it would be unfair and unreasonable for an Indiana court to exercise jurisdiction over him. Overall, we conclude that exercising jurisdiction over Schwartz would not offend notions of fairness and reasonableness. Accordingly, the court erred when it granted Schwartz's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
One interesting aspect of this decision were some of the facts considered by the Court when determining whether it is reasonable for Schwartz to be haled into an Indiana court. These included the fact that he ha visited casinos in Vevay twice a year for the last ten years. This demonstrates the value to plaintiffs in conducting thorough discovery regarding 12(B)(2) motions.
Lessons:
- When ruling on a 12(B)(2) motion in a legal malpractice action, a court must look to all of the attorney's contacts through the end of the representation when determining whether Indiana has specific personal jurisdiction over that attorney.
- Courts will consider a broad range of facts when determining whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant is reasonable.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/131
