Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lane v. Stevens Transport

September 17, 2007

BRUCE W. LANE PLAINTIFF
v.
STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James M. Moody United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and Celadon's Motion for Reconsideration. Responses have been filed to both motions. For the reasons stated below the plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment will be granted in part (#55) and the motion of Celadon for reconsideration (#61) will be denied.

Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Judgment requests that costs incurred in effecting the settlement and attorneys fee be awarded to him pursuant to Indiana Statute Annotated § 22-3-2-13. Celadon concedes that the statute is applicable under the Court's previous ruling but disputes the allocation of costs. At issue is whether the percentage of recovery by Celadon should apply to the total settlement or the amount for which it claimed a lien. The Court finds that the allocation of costs urged by Celadon is the more logical and consistent with the intent of the Indiana statute.

The Costs incurred by the plaintiff were in connection with his claim and resulted in a settlement of $750,000.00. It seems reasonable that Celadon should only be responsible for the percentage of costs based upon its recovery to the total settlement. Celadon will be liable for $2,764.57 in costs and the judgment will be amended accordingly.

Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorneys' fees based on 33a % of the amount of benefits Celadon received after deducting costs. This figure is calculated at $25,227.19 and the judgment will be amended to award this sum to plaintiff.

After reviewing the Motion for Reconsideration which is timely filed, the Court is not convinced that it was in error in applying Indiana Statute Annotated § 34-51-2-19 to the instant case and the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 day of September , 2007.

20070917

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.