Summary
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that Autoform, having committed the first material breach of the parties’ contract, could not recover damages for Whitesell’s subsequent breaches. The court reversed the judgment in Autoform’s favor on its breach-of-contract counterclaim, affirmed the denial of Autoform’s attorney-fee request, and remanded for recalculation of the net damages award.
Holdings
- A party first guilty of a material breach may not maintain an action against the other party or seek to enforce the contract against that party after the other party subsequently breaches. The court rejected the trial court's reliance on Watson Water Company as recognizing an exception based on continued performance and held that Autoform could not recover damages on its breach of contract counterclaim.
- Autoform was not a prevailing party entitled to additional attorneys' fees under Indiana Code section 34-52-1-1 because the court reversed the judgment in Autoform's favor on its breach of contract counterclaim and Autoform did not receive a favorable judgment.
Questions Presented
- Whether a party that committed the first material breach of a contract may nevertheless recover damages for the other party's later breaches when the parties continued performing under the contract.
- Whether Autoform was a prevailing party entitled to additional attorneys' fees under Indiana Code section 34-52-1-1 after its breach of contract counterclaim was awarded damages but those damages were offset against Whitesell's larger award.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (16)
- Whitesell Precision Components, Inc. v. Autoform Tool & Mfg., LLC, 110 N.E.3d 380, 381-82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied(followed for factual and procedural background)
- Whitesell Precision Components, Inc. v. Autoform Tool & Mfg., LLC, 129 N.E.3d 830 (Table), 2019 WL 2588359, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. June 25, 2019) (unpublished)(followed for procedural history)
- Autoform Tool & Mfg., LLC v. Whitesell Precision Components, Inc., 197 N.E.3d 852 (Table), 2022 WL 10861415, at *8 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2022) (unpublished)(followed for procedural history)
- TKG Assocs., LLC v. MBG Monmouth, LLC, 259 N.E.3d 306, 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025)(followed)
- A House Mechs., Inc. v. Massey, 124 N.E.3d 1257, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)(followed)
- Sri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan of Tri State, Inc. v. Farmers State Bank of Alto Pass, 194 N.E.3d 55, 59-60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied(followed)
- Smith v. Dermatology Assocs. of Fort Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)(followed)
- Tompa v. Tompa, 867 N.E.2d 158, 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)(followed)
- Watson Water Co., Inc. v. Indiana-Am. Water Co., Inc., 85 N.E.3d 840, 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)(limited)
- Southeast Land Dev. Ltd. v. Primrose Mgmt. L.L.C., 952 N.E.2d 563, 569, 571 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…