{"id":135,"date":"2022-10-17T09:42:48","date_gmt":"2022-10-17T13:42:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=135"},"modified":"2022-10-17T09:42:48","modified_gmt":"2022-10-17T13:42:48","slug":"indiana-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-class-action-covid-19-immunity-statute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2022\/10\/17\/indiana-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-class-action-covid-19-immunity-statute\/","title":{"rendered":"Indiana Court Of Appeals Strikes Down Class Action COVID-19 Immunity Statute"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr, Jennifer A. Riley, and Gregory Tsonis<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways \u2013<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0In Mellowitz v. Ball State University and Board of Trustees of Ball State University, et al<\/em>, No. 22A-PL-337 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct 5, 2022), the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down a 2021 law that sought to protect in-state universities from class action liability related to the shutdown of university campuses during the COVID-19 pandemic.\u00a0 While the law stated that individuals \u201cmay not\u201d bring class actions against universities resulting from actions taken to defend against the spread of COVID-19, the Indiana Court of Appeals held<\/a> that the statute was \u201cprocedural\u201d and in conflict with Rule 23 of Indiana\u2019s Rules of Trial Procedure, which states that individuals \u201cmay\u201d proceed as a class under certain circumstances.\u00a0 The Court\u2019s ruling is important, as it puts at risk other statutes passed in Indiana and other states restricting class actions against businesses for COVID-19-related claims.<\/p>\n

Background Of The Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2020, Plaintiff Keller J. Mellowitz, a student at Ball State University, filed a putative class action asserting claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Ball State as a result of the university\u2019s decision to cancel in-person classes during the COVID-19 pandemic.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 3.\u00a0 After the complaint was filed, the Indiana General Assembly in 2021 enacted Public Law 166-2021, part of which was codified as Indiana Code Section 34-12-5-7 (\u201cSection 7\u201d) and barred class actions against post-secondary educational institutions for claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19.\u00a0 Ball State subsequently sought relief from Plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit under Section 7, which the trial court granted, and Plaintiff appealed.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 5.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Court\u2019s Ruling Reversing And Remanding the Trial Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiff argued on appeal that, as a procedural statute, Section 7 impermissibly conflicts with Indiana Trial Rule 23, which governs class-action procedures and sets forth the requirements to proceed as a class action, thus rendering Section 7 a \u201cnullity.\u201d\u00a0 The Indiana Court of Appeals began its analysis recognizing longstanding precedent establishing that in a conflict between a procedural statute and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, \u201cthe trial rules govern,\u201d however trial rules \u201ccannot abrogate or modify substantive law.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 6-7.\u00a0 Whether a law was \u201csubstantive,\u201d the Court explained, depended on whether it established \u201crights and responsibilities\u201d whereas procedural laws merely prescribed \u201cthe manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 7.<\/p>\n

In analyzing the specific statutes at issue, the Court of Appeals examined Indiana\u2019s analog to Federal Rule 23, which sets forth the criteria for bringing a class action.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals noted that Indiana Trial Rule 23 was indisputably a procedural rule that allows a plaintiff, when the appropriate criteria are met, to assert his or her claims on behalf of others.\u00a0 Turning to Section 7, the Court of Appeals explained that the statute did not affect any plaintiff\u2019s substantive right to bring a suit for breach of contract or unjust enrichment, but simply \u201cfrustrates them by encouraging a multiplicity of lawsuits from similarly situated plaintiffs.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 14.\u00a0 While Ball State argued that the law protected Indiana universities from \u201cwidespread legal liability\u201d from actions taken to combat and mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the Court of Appeals found the argument \u201cunpersuasive,\u201d explaining that since Section 7 did not prevent any individual plaintiff from asserting the same claims against universities, it therefore \u201cdoes not reduce the institutions\u2019 potential legal liability in the slightest.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 14-15. Ball State also argued that adopting Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cextreme position\u201d would endanger two similar laws passed by the Indiana Legislature, which sought to protect business owners from class-action tort liability.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 15 n.6.\u00a0 The Court rejected Ball State\u2019s argument. It determined that it had \u201cno opinion\u201d on those statutes since they were not before it in the appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With Indiana Trial Rule 23 stating that a plaintiff \u201cmay\u201d bring a class action and Section 7 stating the plaintiff \u201cmay not,\u201d the Court of Appeals held that both laws could not apply in a given situation and, as a result, Section 7 was a \u201cnullity.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 15. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court\u2019s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

While Ball State will very likely appeal this decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, the rationale adopted by the Indiana Court of Appeals could undermine similar statutes meant to protect Indiana employers from class action liability resulting from actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.\u00a0 As many other states throughout the country similarly passed laws meant to protect businesses from liability due to COVID-19, the Mellowitz<\/em> decision provides a potential avenue for plaintiffs to challenge laws in other states.\u00a0\u00a0 Mellowitz<\/em> demonstrates that employers should continue to be aware of the potential for class action lawsuits stemming from response to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite efforts by Indiana\u2019s legislature and other states\u2019 legislatures to prevent such costly, high-risk litigation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr, Jennifer A. Riley, and Gregory Tsonis Duane Morris Takeaways \u2013\u00a0In Mellowitz v. Ball State University and Board of Trustees of Ball State University, et al, No. 22A-PL-337 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct 5, 2022), the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down a 2021 law that sought to protect in-state universities from … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Indiana Court Of Appeals Strikes Down Class Action COVID-19 Immunity Statute”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,8],"class_list":["post-135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-procedural-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":8,"user_id":577,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gtsonis","display_name":"Gregory Tsonis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/tsonisgreg-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}