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. Blog

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP Legal Blog

Indiana Court of Appeals Addresses Damages for Inherent Diminished Value of Personal Property

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Feb 28, 2020 | Actual Cash Value, Broad Evidence Rule, Damages, Replacement Cost Coverage

On February 19, 2020, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion that clarified whether plaintiffs can recover damages for the inherent diminished value of personal property caused by the negligence of a tortfeasor. In Shield Global Partners-G1, LLC v. Lindsay Forster, the defendant rear-ended a pickup truck and admitted the accident was her fault. The truck was repaired after…

Punishment or compensation? Indiana Supreme Court decision guides enforceability of liquidated damages provisions in employment contracts

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Jan 20, 2020 | Employment Law

The Indiana Supreme Court recently provided important guidance for employers looking to hold employees accountable for breaching non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements by providing for liquidated damages. In its December 18, 2019, majority opinion in American Consulting, Inc. d/b/a American Structurepoint, Inc. v. Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc. d/b/a HWC Engineering, Inc. et al. (“ASI”),[1] the Court found that…

Seventh Circuit Narrows ADA Protection for Obese Employees: Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Nov 21, 2019 | Employment Law

Employers often express concern about obese employees in physically demanding jobs or jobs that involve driving a motor vehicle. Obesity causes increased risk of numerous conditions that can cause sudden incapacitation, such as heart attack or stroke.[1]  It is also linked with sleep apnea, which can cause exhaustion.[2]  As a result, employers often fear that an employee’s obesity creates a…

Seventh Circuit Finds Coverage “Illusory” in Commercial E&O Policy

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Sep 24, 2019 | Policy Interpretation

In an opinion handed down on September 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that an exclusion for professional malpractice that applied to claims or suits “based upon or arising out of” a breach of contract was so extremely broad as to render the coverage illusory, requiring a remand to the district court…

“Denied! Rural California Telephone Companies Requests for Higher Cost of Capital are Refused” – Ponderosa Telephone Co., et al v. California Public Utilities Commission

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Sep 16, 2019 | Utility Law

A California court of appeals recently held that utility companies operating in rural areas of the state do not collect a higher cost of capital, also referred to as a rate of return, than other utility companies. In Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. California Public Utilities Commission, several small, rural, privately-owned telephone companies asked the California court of appeals to review…

Moving to Federal Court: A Cooperative’s RUS Loan Provides a Colorable Federal Defense and Supports Federal Officer Removal Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 in a Patronage Capital Lawsuit” – Butler v. Coast Electric Power Association (“Patronage Capital”)

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Sep 12, 2019 | Electric Cooperative Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently allowed a “patronage capital” lawsuit to continue in federal court after deciding federal loan conditions and requirements may preempt state laws.[1] One of the agencies within the United States...

Indiana Utility Law – NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 18S-EX-475 (Ind. 2019)

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Aug 20, 2019 | Utility Law

On June 27, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that Indiana utility companies may be estopped from challenging the use of customer class revenue allocation factors under Indiana’s Transmission, Distribution, and Storage System Improvement Charge statute (the “TDSIC Statute”)[1] if such companies demonstrate uncontested support of the factors’ use in prior proceedings and the challenge would cause injury to an…

Judgment Given: Citizens Challenging a Municipal Utility Ordinance Must Seek Administrative Remedies Before Turning to Civil Court “Municipal/Utility Law – Graham v Brownsburg (May 21, 2019)”

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Aug 12, 2019 | Municipal Law, Utility Law

In July 2018, the town of Brownsburg passed an ordinance introducing a new fee to certain water customers outside the town limits. The fee, pursuant to I.C. § 8-1-2-103(d), helped fund the town’s fire hydrants and had been imposed on all Brownsburg residents since 2010. Shortly after the ordinance’s enactment, Sabrina Graham and Kurt Disser (“Graham/Disser”), who live outside the…

We’ll Have What They’re Having: The Potential Impact of Tennessee Wine on Indiana Utility Law

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Jul 9, 2019 | Utility Law

  The United States Supreme Court recently issued its decision in a case that, on the surface, appears to impact the wine and liquor industry. However, the ruling is promising for out-of-state companies wishing to operate as public utilities in Indiana, as such entities currently face a comparable citizenship hurdle under Indiana law. [1] In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers…

Seventh Circuit Holds Title VII Retaliation Plaintiffs To A High Bar, Requiring Retaliation To Be “The” But-For Cause Rather Than “A” But-For Cause

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Jul 1, 2019 | Employment Law

The Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed the standard required to hold an employer liable for retaliation under Title VII. In Mollet v. City of Greenfield, the court held that “Title VII claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.”[1] This ruling establishes the requirement for an employee to bring a successful retaliation…

« Older Entries
Next Entries »

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