FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT HOLIDAY ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, INC:
DANFORD R. DUE
ROBERT B. CLEMENS SCOTT E. ANDRES
CURTIS T. JONES Due Doyle Fanning, LLP
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR INTERESTED PARTIES
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS OF NEW CASTLE,
FILED
LLC and ANIL MEGHA:
FREEDOM VILLA MILLER Jan 18 2012, 9:45 am
Smith Fisher Maas & Howard, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR INTERESTED PARTY
S.H. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND
NEXT FRIEND OF R.M.H., A MINOR CHILD:
MARK D. GERTH
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY )
FRANCHISING, INC., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 33A01-1103-CT-104
)
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
)
)
)
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS OF NEW )
CASTLE, LLC, ANIL MEGHA. S.H., )
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT )
AND NEXT FRIEND OF R.M.H., a minor )
child, and MICHAEL V. FORSHEY, )
)
Interested Parties-Defendants. )
APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Mary G. Willis, Judge
Cause No. 33C01-0901-CT-3
January 18, 2012
OPINION ON REHEARING - FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Chief Judge
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. (“Holiday Hospitality”), Holiday Inn Express of
New Castle (“Holiday Inn”), Anil Megha, and S.H., individually and as parent and next
friend of R.M.H., (collectively, the “Petitioners”) have petitioned for rehearing of this court’s
decision in Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. Amco Ins. Co., 955 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2011), in which we reversed the trial court’s grant of Amco Insurance Company’s
(“AMCO”) motion for summary judgment as against Holiday Hospitality. We grant the
petition for rehearing to clarify the disposition of our opinion.
2
In our opinion we noted that the reversal of summary judgment only applied as against
Holiday Hospitality, not the other defendants in the trial court action, because Holiday
Hospitality is the only party that appealed. Id. at 831 n.2. The Petitioners argue our reversal
of summary judgment should apply to Holiday Inn and Megha as well, relying on Appellate
Rule 17(A), which provides “[a] party of record in the trial court . . . shall be a party on
appeal.” They argue McKinney v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 1001
(Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied, “squarely addressed” in their favor the issue they raise in
their petition. We agree with the Petitioners that, contrary to the footnote in our opinion, all
parties to the trial court proceeding below are parties on appeal. However, this does not
necessitate that the procedural disposition of our opinion, the reversal of summary judgment
as to Holiday Hospitality, apply to any party other than Holiday Hospitality. Appellate Rule
9(A) mandates that a party file a notice of appeal within thirty days after final judgment and
provides that the right to appeal is forfeited unless the notice of appeal is timely filed. Here,
the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for AMCO against all parties and on all issues
constituted final judgment. Thus, while all parties below may be parties to the appeal, the
reversal of summary judgment only applies to Holiday Hospitality. The other Petitioners
forfeited the right to appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against them.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to Holiday
Hospitality alone and remand for further proceedings.
BARNES, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
3