Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KURT A. WEBBER Kurt A. Webber, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE MICHAEL A. WILKINS BRIAN J. PAUL Ice Miller Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DAVID L. COPENHAVER JOEL E. HARVEY Hayes Copenhaver Crider New Castle, Indiana STEPHEN J. PETERS Stewart & Irwin Indianapolis, Indiana STEVEN D. PEARSON OMAR S. ODLAND Meckler Bulger & Tilson, LLP Chicago, Illinois

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KNIGHTSTOWN BANNER, LLC, ) ) Appellant-Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF KNIGHTSTOWN, ) GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE MANAGERS, ) INC. and GOVERNMENTAL ) INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE, ) ) Appellees-Defendants. )

No. 33A04-0504-CV-200

APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Mary G. Willis, Judge Cause No. 33C01-0405-PL-13

December 13, 2005

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Plaintiff, the Knightstown Banner, LLC. (the Banner), appeals the trial court's denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants, Town of Knightstown (Knightstown), Governmental Insurance Manager, Inc. (GIM) and Governmental Interinsurance Exchange (GIE). The Hoosier State Press Association Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Banner. We reverse and remand with instructions. 1 ISSUE The Banner raises three issues on appeal, one of which we find dispositive and which we restate as follows: Whether documents created by the attorney appointed by Knightstown's reciprocal insurer, memorializing the terms and conditions of a settlement of a civil rights lawsuit brought by a former employee against Knightstown, are public records under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case arises out of three separate requests from the Banner to Knightstown, GIM, and GIE, each seeking to inspect and copy a settlement agreement that resolved a civil rights lawsuit filed on November 25, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, by Gigi Steinwachs (Steinwachs) against Knightstown,
1

Oral arguments were held on November 10, 2005 in the Court of Appeals Courtroom. We hereby congratulate counsel on their excellent briefs submitted in this case and their eloquent oral arguments.

2

members of its police department, and other third parties. In her lawsuit, Steinwachs alleged sexual harassment, physical assault, and intimidation during her employment as a dispatcher with the Knightstown police department. Besides Knightstown's regular town counsel (Regular Town Counsel), an attorney retained by Knightstown's reciprocal insurer, GIE (Retained Town Counsel), also participated in the civil rights lawsuit. GIE is a reciprocal insurer organized under the laws of Illinois, and authorized to conduct insurance business in Indiana. It is a reciprocal interinsurance program whereby governmental entities enter into contracts of indemnity with each other through their common attorney-in-fact, GIM. GIE's insureds, known as subscribers, are exclusively local governmental entities, of which seventy-three percent are located in Indiana. At the time of the initiation of the civil rights lawsuit, Knightstown was insured by GIE. Under the terms of the policy, GIM, as the appointed true and lawful attorney of [Knightstown], had the right to pay those sums that [Knightstown] becomes legally obligated to pay as "damages" because of injury caused by "Designated Wrongful Employment Practices: to which this Coverage Part applies. [GIM] will have the rights and duty to defend any insured against a "suit" seeking these damages from [Knightstown], and [GIM] will have the right to administer, manage, and control the defense of [Knightstown] . . . [GIM] may at our discretion investigate any "occurrence" and settle, in whole or in part, any "claim" or "suit" that may result. (Appellant's App. p. 543). On October 21, 2003, Steinwachs, individually and through counsel, and Knightstown, through Regular Town Counsel and Retained Town Counsel, resolved the civil rights lawsuit in a settlement conference. Following the conference, the district

3

court ordered the filing of a motion to dismiss or stipulation of dismissal within thirty days because of the settlement between the parties. Pursuant to the terms of the

settlement, Knightstown was to directly pay Steinwachs $5,000.00 in partial payment of the agreed compensation. However, the Town Council President refused to further discuss the terms of the settlement because of a confidentiality provision which would result in additional compensation for Steinwachs if breached. On or about November 13, 2003, Steinwachs filed a motion to extend the time to file a stipulation of dismissal in the civil rights lawsuit. On or about November 18, 2003, the district court granted Steinwachs' motion and extended the time to file the stipulation until "ten days after receipt of remaining funds." (Appellant App. p. 85). Thereafter, on or about December 9, 2003, Steinwachs' counsel and Retained Town Counsel filed a stipulation to dismiss. That same day, the district court dismissed the civil rights lawsuit without sealing the settlement agreement. On October 29, 2003, pursuant to APRA, the Banner submitted its first request to Knightstown seeking to inspect a copy of the settlement agreement. Approximately two weeks later, on November 10, 2003, the Banner submitted identical requests to Knightstown and GIE to receive a copy of the settlement agreement, or in the alternative in the event the settlement was not reduced to writing, "complete copies of any and all documents which reveal the amount of money either already paid or to be paid to [Steinwachs] . . . as well as any and all documents which set forth any nonmonetary terms and conditions of the settlement agreement." (Appellant's App pp. 76-77). Both Knightstown and GIE denied the request. 4

On May 21, 2004, the Banner filed a Verified Complaint against Knightstown, GIE, and GIM alleging a violation of APRA, a violation of the common law right to inspect public records, and a violation of article I,

Download Knightstown Banner, LLC v. Town of Knightstown, et al..pdf

Indiana Law