Degussa Corp. v. Mullens

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Lenita Mullens’s products-liability claims were timely under Indiana’s discovery rule because, when she filed suit, her physicians had not yet informed her of a reasonable possibility that workplace chemicals caused her lung disease. The court affirmed denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion on the statute-of-limitations issue. The court was evenly divided on whether Agritek was Mullens’s co-employer under the Indiana Workers’ Compensation Act, so it affirmed the trial court’s denial of Agritek’s motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. A products-liability claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have discovered both that she suffered an injury and that the injury was caused by the product or act of another.
2. The limitations period was not shown to have been triggered on March 17, 1992, because the physician merely identified workplace chemicals as one of several possible causes and did not inform Mullens of a reasonable possibility or probability that the chemicals caused her ailments.
3. The trial court's denial of Agritek's motion to dismiss was affirmed under Indiana Appellate Rule 59(B) because the participating justices were evenly divided on whether Mullens was Agritek's employee and therefore limited to workers' compensation remedies.

Questions Presented

1. When did Mullens's products-liability cause of action accrue for purposes of Indiana's two-year statute of limitations?
2. Whether the medical information available to Mullens on March 17, 1992, established a reasonable possibility or probability that workplace chemicals caused her injury and therefore triggered the limitations period.
3. Whether Agritek was Mullens's employer or joint employer such that the Indiana Workers' Compensation Act provided her exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.
4. Whether the trial court's denial of Agritek's motion to dismiss should be affirmed when the participating justices were evenly divided.

Disposition

affirmed