Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana answers certified questions concerning whether Indiana recognizes an independent claim for first-party negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence. The court holds that Indiana law does not recognize such an independent tort, concluding that existing evidentiary inferences, discovery sanctions, and other remedies outweigh the disadvantages of creating a new cause of action. Because the first certified question was answered negatively, the court finds it unnecessary to answer the second question.

Holdings

1. Indiana law does not recognize an additional independent cognizable claim against an alleged tortfeasor for either negligent or intentional first-party spoliation of evidence relevant to a tort action.
2. Because Indiana does not recognize the proposed first-party spoliation claim, it was unnecessary to answer the certified question concerning the tort's elements, remedies, or possible election between a spoliation claim and an evidentiary inference.
3. The court declined to decide whether Indiana recognizes a separate remedy for third-party spoliation because the certified questions were limited to first-party spoliation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Indiana law recognizes an independent claim for first-party negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence by an alleged tortfeasor.
2. If such a claim exists, what its elements and remedies would be and whether a plaintiff must elect between the spoliation claim and an evidentiary inference in the underlying tort action.

Disposition

other