fraudulent concealment doctrine in Indiana

2013Under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, “a person is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense if that person, by deception or violation of a duty, has concealed material facts from the plaintiff and thereby prevented discovery of a wrong.” Boggs, 730 N.E.2d at 698 (citing Hughes v. Glaese, 659 N.E.2d 516, 519 (Ind. 1995)).

1998Fraudulent Concealment Our supreme court has held that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment “operates to estop a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense when that person, by deception or violation of a duty, has concealed material from the plaintiff thereby preventing discovery of a wrong.” Hughes v. Glaese, 659 N.E.2d 516, 519 (Ind.1995) (emphasis supplied).

2016Fager [v. Hundt], 610 N.E.2d 246 , 253 n. 5 (Ind.1993) (“While the fraudulent concealment exception is an equitable doctrine, the relevant facts may be determined by a jury in the event of trial”).

2014Fager, 610 N.E.2d at 253 n. 5 (“While the fraudulent concealment exception is an equitable doctrine, the relevant facts may be determined by a jury in the event of trial.”).

2020Specifically, the City argues that LWG fraudulently concealed the Memo and, as a result, the statute of limitations period should be tolled. [36] The fraudulent concealment doctrine “operates to estop a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim whenever the defendant, by his own actions, prevents the plaintiff from obtaining the knowledge necessary to pursue a claim.” Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Servs., 718 N.E.2d 738, 744 (Ind. 1999).

2017Even where a statute of limitations has expired, a plaintiff may be able to proceed under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which “is an equitable doctrine which operates to prevent a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim where the defendant, by his own actions, prevents the plaintiff from obtaining the knowledge necessary to pursue a claim.” Meisenhelder v. Zipp Express, Inc., 788 N.E.2d 924, 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Servs., Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 744-45 (Ind, 1999)).

2018Theresa asserts that the period should be tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, and she designated Dr. Nasir's affidavit to establish an issue of fact material to that theory. [17] Under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, "a person is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense if that person, by deception or violation of a duty, has concealed material facts from the plaintiff and thereby prevented discovery of a wrong." Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc. , 730 N.E.2d 692 , 698 (Ind. 2000).

2013Under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, “a person is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense if that person, by deception or violation of a duty, has concealed material facts from the plaintiff and thereby prevented discovery of a wrong.” Boggs, 730 N.E.2d at 698 (citing Hughes v. Glaese, 659 N.E.2d 516, 519 (Ind. 1995)).

1985The court then introduced the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment. 236 Ind. at 107 , 138 N.E.2d at 895 .

1985The court then introduced the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment. 236 Ind. at 107 , 138 N.E.2d at 895 .

2016Id. at 1143 . [29] Smith argues that the malpractice was not discovered until August 2011 and that, under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, she had a full two years after that date to file her proposed complaint.

2016Smith directs us to evidence that Dr. Fehrenbacher did not provide her with the results of her original segmental pressure study from March 2010 until Dr. Fehrenbacher did further follow-up in August 2011. [27] Under the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment, “a defendant who has prevented a plaintiff from discovering an otherwise valid claim, by violation of duty or deception, is estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense.” Id. at 1142 .

2009"When the fraudulent concealment exception applies, ... the equitable grounds cease when a person, once becoming an adult, knows or should have discovered that a childhood injury was sustained as a result of the defendant's tortious conduct." Id.

1991The “doctrine of fraudulent concealment ... operates as an equitable doctrine to estop a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations when he has, either by deception or by a violation of a duty, concealed from the plaintiff material facts thereby preventing the plaintiff from discovering a potential cause of action.” Burks v. Rushmore (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 .

1996Yarnell v. Hurley, 572 N.E.2d 1312, 1315 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied; Cyrus v. Nero, 546 N.E.2d 328, 330 (Ind.Ct.App.1989).

1990Cyrus v. Nero (1989), Ind.App., 546 N.E.2d 328 .

1996Lambert v. Stark, 484 N.E.2d 630, 632 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trans. denied.

1991Lambert v. Stark (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 630, 632 .

2023See Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E. 3d 1257 (Ind. 2014) (reciting the history of legislation concerning the fraudulent concealment doctrine).

2018See Babcock v. Lafayette Home Hosp., Woman’s Clinic, 587 N.E.2d 1320, 1323 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (finding the doctrine inapplicable where the alleged injury was the retention of a surgical sponge inside the patient, determining that leaving the sponge behind and, later, misreading a chest x-ray were “isolated” events). [17] Finally, Musselman asserts that a defense based upon the statute of limitations should not be available to the Health Care Providers because of the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment.

2018Continuing Wrong [12] “‘The doctrine of continuing wrong applies where an entire course of conduct combines to produce an injury.’” Snyder, 20 N.E.3d at 552 (quoting Gradus- Pizlo v. Acton, 964 N.E.2d 865, 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)).

2017See Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 482 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (Ratliff, J., dissenting), vacated on transfer by Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986), reh’g denied.

2017See Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 482 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (Ratliff, J., dissenting), vacated on transfer by Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986), reh’g denied.

2017See Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 482 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (Ratliff, J., dissenting), vacated on transfer by Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986), reh’g denied.

2017See Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 482 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (Ratliff, J., dissenting), vacated on transfer by Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986), reh’g denied.

2017Even where a statute of limitations has expired, a plaintiff may be able to proceed under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which “is an equitable doctrine which operates to prevent a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim where the defendant, by his own actions, prevents the plaintiff from obtaining the knowledge necessary to pursue a claim.” Meisenhelder v. Zipp Express, Inc., 788 N.E.2d 924, 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Servs., Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 744-45 (Ind, 1999)).

2014Citing Southerland v. Hammond, 693 N.E.2d 74, 78 (Ind. Ct.App.1998), in which a panel of our Court of Appeals stated that as to a wrongful death claim, “the fraudulent concealment exception does not establish a new date for the commencement of the statute of limitations, but rather creates an equitable exception” under which a “plaintiff must institute an action within a reasonable time after he discovers information which would lead to discovery of the cause of action,” the trial court concluded the plaintiffs had waited too long after learning the true cause of death: a year to open the esta

2014See KB Home Ind., Inc. v. Rockville TBD Corp., 928 N.E.2d 297, 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (plaintiff had no claim for trespass because it did not own the property when the damage occurred). 7 R&M and the Trust assert that they should be allowed to bring a trespass claim against Twin Lakes under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment.

2010"Usually, to invoke the protection provided by this statute, the wrongdoer must have actively concealed the cause of action and the plaintiff is charged with the responsibility of exercising due diligence to discover the claims." Farmers Elevator Co. of Oakville, Inc. v. Hamilton, 926 N.E.2d 68, 79 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

2009Doe v. Rog, 52 F.3d 151, 155 (7th Cir.1995).

2009The court disagreed, interpreting the fraudulent concealment exception announced in Fager to apply only to "actions by parents which result in injuries to their children, not omissions by parents which allow injuries to occur." Id. at 155 .