Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
Call 317-269-2500 For A Consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Firm History
    • Firm News
    • Career Opportunities
      • Attorneys
      • Law Students
      • Professional Staff
    • Helpful Links
  • Practice Areas
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Appeals
    • Business Organizations
    • Education
    • Estate Planning & Probate
    • Governmental Affairs
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Policyholder & Insurance Recovery
    • Real Estate & Land Use
    • Utilities Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Payment Portal
    • Pay Invoice
    • Pay Retainer
Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Firm History
    • Firm News
    • Career Opportunities
      • Attorneys
      • Law Students
      • Professional Staff
    • Helpful Links
  • Practice Areas
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Appeals
    • Business Organizations
    • Education
    • Estate Planning & Probate
    • Governmental Affairs
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Policyholder & Insurance Recovery
    • Real Estate & Land Use
    • Utilities Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Payment Portal
    • Pay Invoice
    • Pay Retainer
Email

CALL

Experienced Litigators And Advocates Serving Clients Across Indiana

  1. Home
  2.  ► 
  3. Construction Law
  4.  ► 
  5. Discretionary Function Immunity

Discretionary Function Immunity

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Apr 26, 2017 | Construction Law, Municipal Law |

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled evidence of more than financing alone must be presented to demonstrate that the City has engaged in a policy-oriented decision making process  in order for discretionary function immunity to apply.  Cathy Beloat sued the City of Beech Grove after breaking her leg by stepping in hole in Main Street in the City. The City of Beech Grove claimed discretionary function immunity and presented an affidavit from its Mayor and minutes of the City Council and the Board of Works and Safety. The Mayor’s affidavit was not enough to demonstrate that an official policy decision was made. The minutes of City Council and the Board of Works and Safety, while establishing that the financing was discussed and approved, did not demonstrate the cost-benefit analysis, weighing of other options, and prioritization discussions that are required to decide that the City has engaged in a policy-oriented decision making process. The Court found that while the inference could be drawn that the City Council and/or the Board of Works and Safety did engage in the policy discussion necessary, the standard of review forbids that kind of inference.

Based on the Court’s decision, evidence of financing alone is not enough to show that the City completed all that was necessary to be shielded by discretionary function immunity. Had minutes been produced that demonstrated the cost-benefit analysis, weighing of options, why specific repairs were to be made and why total reconstruction rather than piecemeal, the Court might likely have found the City was immune.

James A. L. Buddenbaum has practiced law for more than 25 years with Parr Richey representing municipalities and businesses in utility, healthcare and general business sectors in both regulatory and transactional matters. Jim also has extensive experience in representing businesses in making large property damage and similar insurance claims.

The statements contained here are matters of opinion for general information purposes only and should not be considered by anyone as forming an attorney client relationship or advice for any particular legal matter of the reader. All readers should obtain legal advice for any specific legal matters.

Recent Posts

  • Indiana Appeals Court Affirms Bad-Faith Claim Against Erie Insurance
  • What If Evidence Is Destroyed In A Lawsuit?
  • The Number Of Remonstrators Controls Opposition To Establishemnt Of A Conservancy District
  • Local Government Need Not Provide Health Insurance to Elected Official
  • FERC Legal – Blog Post: Duke Energy Corp. v. FERC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16108

Archives

Categories

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

Contact Our Office To Learn How We Can Serve You

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse

Phone:
317-269-2500

  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow

Indianapolis Law Office

251 North Illinois Street
Suite 1800
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone: 317-269-2500
Fax: 317-269-2514
Toll Free: 888-337-7766

Lebanon Law Office

225 West Main Street
PO Box 668
Lebanon, IN 46052


Phone:
765-482-0110
Phone: 317-269-2509
Fax: 765-483-3444
Toll Free: 888-532-7766

Chicago Law Office

One East Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-724-8280
Fax: 773-960-8600

Review The Firm
Pay Invoice
Pay Retainer
Schedule Payment

© 2026 Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw