MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 26 2017, 10:10 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James R. Fisher Aimee Rivera Cole
Miller & Fisher, LLC Travelers Staff Counsel Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jennifer Benson, July 26, 2017
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1702-CT-372
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Denison Parking, Inc. and City The Honorable James B. Osborn
of Indianapolis, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Defendant. 49D14-1511-CT-37632
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 1 of 17
Case Summary
[1] Jennifer Benson (“Benson”) fell on ice on a municipally-owned Indianapolis
sidewalk six feet from a parking garage owned by the Capital Improvement
Board of Managers of Marion County, Indiana (“the CIB”), managed by
Denison Parking, Inc. pursuant to its contract with the CIB. Denison was
granted summary judgment upon Benson’s negligence claim and she appeals. 1
Benson presents a single consolidated and restated issue: whether the trial court
erroneously granted summary judgment to Denison, because Denison was
unable to demonstrate the absence of its contractual or common-law duty of
reasonable care to Benson. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 21, 2014, at approximately 7:35 a.m., Benson had completed an
eight-hour shift as a nurse at the Marion County Jail and was walking to her
vehicle. The vehicle was parked in the Virginia Avenue Garage, a facility
owned by the CIB and managed by Denison. Benson was on the public
sidewalk approximately six feet from the pedestrian entrance to the parking
garage when she slipped on ice and fell, sustaining serious injuries.
1
In a separate order of January 31, 2017, the trial court granted summary judgment to the City of
Indianapolis. That order is not challenged in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 2 of 17
[3] On November 12, 2015, Benson filed a negligence complaint against Denison.
On February 18, 2016, she filed an amended complaint to add the City of
Indianapolis (“the City”) as a defendant. Benson’s amended complaint alleged
that Denison and the City each breached a duty “to exercise reasonable care in
the maintenance of the walking surface on which the Plaintiff fell.” (App. Vol.
II pg. 75.) On October 13, 2016, Denison filed a motion for summary judgment
upon Benson’s complaint, asserting that it owed Benson no duty of care;
Benson filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. After a hearing, the
parties submitted briefs to the trial court addressing whether Denison owed a
duty of care to Benson.
[4] On January 13, 2017, the trial court granted Denison’s motion for summary
judgment. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Benson argues that summary judgment was improvidently granted. She asserts
that Denison had a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care for her safety
and also, she is a third-party beneficiary of the management contract between
CIB and Denison.
[6] Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence shows that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Indiana Trial Rule 56(C). To prevail on a motion for
summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that the undisputed material
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 3 of 17
facts negate at least one element of the other party’s claim. Winfrey v. NLMP,
Inc., 963 N.E.2d 609, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Once the moving party has met
this burden with a prima facie showing, the nonmoving party may not rest on
its pleadings, but must designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of a
genuine issue for trial. Morris v. Cain, 71 N.E.3d 871, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
[7] In an appeal involving summary judgment, the appealing party bears the
burden of persuasion, and we assess the trial court’s decision to ensure that the
parties were not improperly denied their day in court. Shambaugh & Son, Inc. v.
Carlisle, 763 N.E.2d 459, 460 (Ind. 2002). In so doing, we accept as true those
facts alleged by the non-moving party, construe the evidence in favor of the
non-movant, and resolve all doubts against the moving party. Id. We may
affirm summary judgment if it is proper on any basis shown in the record.
Morris, 71 N.E.3d at 879.
[8] A negligence claim is established by showing (1) a duty owed by the defendant
to conform its conduct to a standard of care arising from its relationship with
the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) an injury proximately caused by
the breach of that duty. City of Indianapolis v. Johnson, 736 N.E.2d 295, 297
(Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence
cases because they are particularly fact sensitive and are governed by a standard
of the objective reasonable person, which is best applied by a jury after hearing
all the evidence. Winfrey, 963 N.E.2d at 612. However, a defendant may
obtain summary judgment in a negligence action when the undisputed facts
negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s claim, such as whether a duty is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 4 of 17
owed to the plaintiff. Winchell v. Guy, 857 N.E.2d 1024, 1027 (Ind. Ct. App.
2006). “Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff is a question of
law for the court to decide.” Id.
[9] In premises liability cases, whether a duty is owed depends primarily upon
whether the defendant was in control of the premises when the accident
occurred. Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 385 (Ind. 2004). The rationale is
to subject to liability the person who could have known of any dangers on the
land and acted to prevent any foreseeable harm. Id. The entrant’s status on the
land, as invitee, licensee, or trespasser, is determinative of the particular duty
that the landowner, or occupier of land, owes. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637,
639 (Ind. 1991).
[10] An invitee is a person who goes onto the land of another at the express or
implied invitation of an owner or occupant either to transact business or for the
mutual benefit of invitee and owner or occupant. Markle v. Hacienda Mexican
Rest., 570 N.E.2d 969, 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).2 Benson asserts that she was
2
In Burrell, our supreme court defined a landowner-invitor’s duty to an invitee:
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land
if, but only if, he
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it
involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitee, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves
against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.” Burrell, 569 N.E.2d at 639-640
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 5 of 17
Denison’s business invitee, en route to her parked vehicle.3 It is well-settled that
an invitor owes its invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care while the invitee is
“on [the invitor’s] premises.” City of Indianapolis, 736 N.E.2d at 298.
[11] Benson fell on the public sidewalk owned by the City of Indianapolis and thus
there is no duty on Denison’s part based upon ownership of the sidewalk. As
for a duty based upon occupancy, Benson argues that the CIB garage
“premises” managed by Denison were necessarily expanded beyond a legal
property description, to include a reasonable means of ingress and egress.
[12] In response, Denison argues that Benson was a public pedestrian at the time of
her fall and the duty to maintain safe public sidewalk conditions lies solely with
the City. Denison points to the rationale enunciated in Lawson v. Lafayette Home
Hosp., Inc., 760 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), an appeal from the
grant of summary judgment for the defendant hospital after a pedestrian sued
for injuries he sustained after slipping and falling on a public sidewalk adjacent
to the hospital:
It is well settled in Indiana that an owner or occupant of property
abutting a public street or sidewalk has no duty to clear those
streets and sidewalks of ice and snow. …Additionally, municipal
ordinances that require abutting owners or occupiers to remove
snow and ice from public sidewalks do not, as a matter of law,
3
It is undisputed that CIB is the actual property owner of the garage. However, Denison occupied the garage
as a limited agent of CIB. See Schneider v. Paragon Realty, LLC, 55 N.E.3d 374, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (“by
virtue of the property management agreement, Paragon was a limited agent of Heartland, Bubbaz’
landlord.”)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 6 of 17
create a duty under which an owner or occupier can be held
liable to third party pedestrians.
(citations omitted; emphasis in original.)
[13] The Lawson Court then addressed the appellant’s argument that the hospital had
assumed a duty. See id. “In Indiana, persons are held to have assumed a duty to
pedestrians on public sidewalks only when they create artificial conditions that
increase risk and proximately cause injury to persons using those sidewalks.” Id.
at 1130. The hospital’s removal of snow from the sidewalk and placement in
piles on the ground “did not create an artificial condition increasing the risk of
harm to Lawson.” Id.4
[14] Relying upon Lawson, a panel of this Court found no duty on the part of
Denison in a case involving apparently identical snow removal management
procedures5 and a factual scenario very similar to the instant case. Denison
4
The Lawson Court approvingly cited Halkias v. Gary Nt. Bank, 142 Ind. App. 329, 332, 234 N.E.2d 652, 654
(1968) for the proposition that “Such [snow removal] efforts to reduce the danger to pedestrians, though they
may not be legally required, are generally considered desirable and worthy, and should not be discouraged by
holding such persons liable simply because they endeavor to do so.”
5
The language in the Snow Removal section of the Operating Plans, Exhibit A, designated herein, (App.
Vol. II, pg. 19) is identical to that of the “Snow Removal” section of Denison’s internal employee manual
quoted in the prior Denison case:
A company contracted vendor will perform initial snow removal from the roofs and the sidewalks of
parking facilities, in addition to salting or sanding all applicable areas. After initial snow removal, however,
each facility is responsible for monitoring and keeping abreast of the need for further snow removal services.
IT IS IMPERATIVE TO STAY ON TOP OF SNOW REMOVAL! In the event of a long response time
from a contractor, it becomes the manager’s responsibility to ensure that the facility’s sidewalks are cleared
and salted or sanded, whether the snowfall occurs during the daytime, evenings, overnight, or on the
weekend. If for some reason the designated staff person at a particular location cannot remove the snow, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 7 of 17
Parking, Inc. v. Davis, 861 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.
There, the plaintiff, Barbara Davis (“Davis”), had parked her vehicle in a
Denison-managed garage and headed to work. While walking on the sidewalk
in front of Market Square Arena, she slipped on a patch of ice. See id. at 1277-
78. Denison was responsible for snow removal from the sidewalks at Market
Square Arena pursuant to its management contract with the CIB. See id. at
1278. Denison moved for summary judgment upon a negligence complaint
filed by Davis and summary judgment was denied. On appeal, a panel of this
Court considered whether Denison owed a common law or statutory duty to
Davis.6 See id. at 1280-81.
[15] The Court found that Denison had no common-law duty to Davis, observing
that “a municipality has a common law duty to exercise reasonable care and
diligence to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for
travel.” Id. at 1280 (emphasis in original). Moreover, the Court stated that a
like result would ensue under the balancing test set forth in Webb v. Jarvis, 575
backup person should be designated to provide these services. If not, the manager may have to clear away
the snow and salt and sand until a contractor can be contacted.
It is also the manager’s responsibility to ensure that adequate snow removal supplies are kept on hand, such
as ice melt (plus scoop and spreader), sand, shovels, and snow blower. Make a regular checkup of these
supplies. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF A SNOW TO ORDER ICE MELT OR RELATED
SUPPLIES!
See Denison, 861 N.E.2d at 1278.
6
The statutory claim was premised upon Indianapolis Municipal Code Section 931-102, providing: “A
registrant under this chapter shall keep the surrounding sidewalks and driveways leading into a commercial
parking facility reasonably free from dirt, water, ice, sleet and snow and in a safe condition for the travel of
pedestrians.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 8 of 17
N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991).7 Finally, the Court reaffirmed that city ordinances “are
not enacted for the protection of individuals using the streets but rather are for
the benefit of the municipality.” Id. at 1281.
[16] In reaching its decision, the Denison Court reiterated that “In Indiana, persons
are held to have assumed a duty to pedestrians on a public sidewalk only when
they create artificial conditions that increase risk and proximately cause injury
to persons using those sidewalks.” Id. (emphasis in original).8 The Court
further observed that “the simple removal of the natural accumulation of snow
and ice from a public sidewalk has never been held to be an artificially created
condition that increases risk so as to serve as the basis of liability in Indiana.”
Id.; see also Bowman v. Tippmann Enterprises, 868 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007) (relying upon Denison to conclude that summary judgment was properly
granted to Wells Fargo Bank, which did not owe a duty to a pedestrian who
7
In Webb, in deciding whether a doctor owed a duty to a third party injured by the doctor’s patient, our
supreme held that, in order to determine whether a duty exists, courts employ a three-part balancing test: (1)
the relationship between the parties; (2) the foreseeability of harm; and (3) public policy concerns. 575
N.E.2d at 995. The Indiana Supreme Court has since clarified that although the Webb three-part balancing
test is a useful tool in determining whether a duty exists, this is so “only in those instances where the element
of duty has not already been declared or otherwise articulated.” No. Ind. Public Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d
462, 465 (Ind. 2003).
8
Legislation may be drafted to make an abutting landowner liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a
public sidewalk. See Romano v. Leger, 72 A.D.3d 1059, 1059, 900 N.Y.S.2d 346. (“An abutting landowner
will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the
condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an
obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a
breach of that duty.”) (emphasis added.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 9 of 17
slipped on snow and ice where the sidewalk intersected with the entrance into
the drive-through lanes), trans. denied.
[17] Benson has not alleged that Denison, by its conduct as the limited agent of CIB,
increased a risk to Benson or created an artificial condition. The designated
materials indicate that the accumulation of ice, a natural event, took place
during Benson’s work shift. Benson walked on a public sidewalk near CIB’s
garage, managed by Denison, with the expectation that she would return to her
vehicle; instead, she fell. Benson does not acknowledge or distinguish Denison
or its progeny. Rather, she argues: “it has long been established that a property
owner owes a duty to an invitee to provide a safe and suitable means of ingress
and egress to the business property, for its customers.” Appellant’s Brief at 16.
She urges that the duty to an invitee may be expanded beyond “the premises”
pursuant to a “test,” Appellant’s Brief at 17, enunciated in Ember v. B.F.D., Inc.,
490 N.E.2d 764, 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994):
A duty of reasonable care may be extended beyond the business
premises when it is reasonable for invitees to believe the invitor
controls premises adjacent to his own or where the invitor knows
his invitees customarily use such adjacent premises in connection
with the invitation.
[18] To the extent that this language may be said to comprise a “test,” it must be
read in conjunction with the language preceding it:
An invitor’s duty normally extends only to its “premises.”
However, we recognize that in this case “the premises” may not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 10 of 17
be limited to the area actually owned or leased by the Pub because
its business activities extended beyond its legal boundaries.”
Id. (emphasis added). In Ember, a bar patron had been attacked and beaten by
three assailants across the street from O’Sullivan’s Italian Pub (“the Pub”). See
id. at 766. After the patron brought a negligence suit, the trial court concluded
that the Pub had no duty to the patron in those circumstances. This Court
reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Pub, observing that a
reasonable inference could be drawn that the Pub had gratuitously assumed a
duty to patrol the area in question and possibly failed to perform its duty in a
reasonable manner. Id. at 773. More specifically, the designated record
indicated that: “the Pub maintained police and civilian patrols outside its
premises due to its acknowledged adverse effect on the immediate
neighborhood9,” id. at 767, “the Pub distributed a flyer emblazoned with its
phone number which implored area residents to call the Pub before the police in
case of problems in the neighborhood,” id. at 770, “the Pub knew its parking lot
was insufficient for its patrons’ use,” id. at 772, and the attack had commenced
at the entrance to an “overflow” lot. Id. Accordingly, the bar patron had not
lost his invitee status while waiting outside the Pub’s legal boundaries. Id.
[19] Benson also directs our attention to Rawls v. Marsh Supermarket, Inc., 802 N.E.2d
457 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). First National Bank & Trust (“First National”)
9
In a submission to the Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the Pub had represented that the officers
were responsible for maintaining order in the parking lot and any adjoining streets.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 11 of 17
entered a lease agreement with Marsh Supermarket, Inc. (“Marsh”) and
mounted an ATM on an exterior wall of Marsh’s building. Rawls, an ATM
customer, struck her foot on a curb as she turned to leave the ATM and fell on
the ground. See id. at 458. Rawls sued both First National and Marsh; First
National was granted summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to
Rawls. See id.
[20] A panel of this Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, concluding “it is
evident that First National owed Rawls a duty of reasonable care under the
theory of premises liability.” Id. at 461. The Court elaborated:
Rawls entered the land as an invitee of First National to conduct
a transaction at the ATM, which necessarily required her to
utilize the sidewalk. The likelihood of an invitee such as Rawls
entering the area near the ATM is obviously significant.
Moreover, if the sidewalk was actually too narrow (a question for
the finder of fact), then we cannot say that an accident similar to
Rawl’s was not foreseeable.
For the purposes of this case, we need not determine whether
First National’s duty of reasonable care as a nontraditional
possessor/occupier includes a continuing duty to inspect the
areas surrounding each of its ATMs to ensure that they are
reasonably safe for customers. Here, there is no claim that Rawls
fell as the result of recent or temporary conditions upon the land
(e.g., debris or ice), conditions that Marsh would arguably be in
the best position to protect against. Rather, the allegedly
dangerous condition existed at the time of the ATM’s placement
in 1986 or 1987, at a location specifically chosen by First
National. Under these circumstances, it is sufficient for us to
conclude that First National owed Rawls a duty of reasonable
care in selecting the location of its ATM.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 12 of 17
Id.
[21] In reaching its decision, the Rawls Court found support in Lutheran Hosp. of
Indiana, Inc. v. Blaser, 634 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), a case to which
Benson also directs our attention. There, the Court affirmed a jury verdict in
favor of an injured pedestrian, and recognized that “[a] duty of reasonable care
may be extended beyond the business premises when it is reasonable for
invitees to believe that the invitor controls premises adjacent to his own or
where the invitor knows his invitees customarily use such adjacent premises in
connection with the invitation.” Id. at 870.
[22] In that case, Joy Lee Blaser (“Blaser”), was struck by a vehicle and injured in a
parking lot driveway near Lutheran Hospital of Indiana at Fort Wayne
(“Lutheran Hospital”). See id. at 867-68. A jury awarded Blaser damages and
Lutheran Hospital appealed, contending that it only had a duty to maintain the
parking lot driveway and did not control the public right-of-way to the
driveway. See id. at 868. This Court recognized that Lutheran Hospital was a
business invitor having a duty to guard against subjecting Blaser to dangers of
which Lutheran Hospital was cognizant of or might have reasonably foreseen.
Id. The duty extended beyond Lutheran Hospital’s “actual premises” because it
“creat[ed] a dangerous condition on its premises.” Id. at 873. Lutheran
Hospital created the dangerous condition by its design selection and failure to
correct misleading signage. Pedestrians gravitated toward and were not
discouraged from using a conspicuous mid-block canopied entrance that was
away from the marked and lighted intersections with crosswalks. See id. at 869.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 13 of 17
Also, drivers were “funneled” into an “entrance” for delivery trucks that was
intended to be an “exit” for automobiles; Blaser had been struck from behind by
an automobile turning into the parking lot “exit.” See id.
[23] In sum, we have recognized a duty extending beyond the actual premises of a
business invitor where the invitor extended its business activities into abutting
property or the invitor implemented measures that increased the risk to patrons
in abutting property. Here, by contrast, the designated record reveals no such
expansion of business activity into abutting property. Without an expansion of
business activity, there is no basis for expansion of business premises like that
recognized in Ember, Rawls, or Lutheran Hospital. The designated facts here are
not distinguishable from those of Denison, supra; they do not support an
expanded scope of premises for purposes of determining premises liability.
[24] Additionally, Benson asserts that she is a third-party beneficiary of the contract
between the CIB and Denison. “Under Indiana law, one who is not a party to
a contract may enforce the contract by demonstrating that they are a third-party
beneficiary.” Nat. Bd. of Examiners v. American Osteopathic Ass’n, 645 N.E.2d
608, 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). A third-party beneficiary contract exists when
(1) the parties intend to benefit a third party; (2) the contract imposes a duty on
one of the parties in favor of the third-party; and (3) the performance of the
terms of the contract renders a direct benefit to the third party intended by the
parties to the contract. Id. Among these three factors, the intent of the
contracting parties to benefit the third party is the controlling factor. Id. The
intent to benefit may be shown by specifically naming the third party or by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 14 of 17
other evidence. The intent is that the promising party “shall assume a direct
obligation to” the third party. Id.
[25] Here, the contract provides that Denison, the Parking Contractor, is to perform
services pursuant to operating plans set forth in Exhibit A to the contract. The
operating plans include bullet points and, under the “Customers” heading, the
following language appears: “Remove snow and ice build up that may restrict
the safety of pedestrian traffic.” (App. Vol. II pg. 18). A section entitled
“SNOW REMOVAL” provides that a company-contracted vendor will
perform initial snow removal from the roofs and sidewalks of parking facilities,
in addition to salting or sanding all applicable areas. (App. Vol. II pg. 19.)
After the initial snow removal, each facility is to be responsible for monitoring
the need for further snow removal services.
[26] Jeffrey Lee Allsup, the project manager for CIB parking properties,10 explained
in his deposition the process employed for snow removal:
Typically, whenever there’s snow predicted, I get with our snow
team, as I call it. We have a maintenance services group which
works specifically for Denison Parking that does major snow
removal. Then I have, as I call them, my snow team in house
that does minor snow removal; spread salt, what have you. . . .
[The maintenance service group] basically take[s] care of the roof
10
This job title could suggest that Allsup is employed by CIB. However, Allsup stated in his deposition:
“We simply are the management company.” (App. Vol. II pg. 53.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 15 of 17
there. They don’t do the sidewalks. Sidewalks are done by my
in-house staff.
(App. Vol. II pg. 54.)
[27] Benson argues that, because the language “Remove snow and ice build up that
may restrict the safety of pedestrian traffic” appears within the Exhibit A
section “a. Customers,” (App. Vol. II pg. 18), and she was a Denison parking
customer, she was “an intended, specifically designated third party beneficiary
of Denison’s written contract with the CIB.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. To the
extent that Benson may now be understood to say that a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether Denison assumed a direct obligation to her,
this argument is raised for the first time on appeal. Benson’s complaint does
not assert that she was a third-party beneficiary of a contract and she did not
raise the issue in opposition to Denison’s motion for summary judgment. A
party may not change its theory of the case on appeal and argue an issue which
was not properly presented to the trial court. Nat. Bd. of Examiners, 645 N.E.2d
at 618. As such, Benson’s claim that the trial court improvidently granted
summary judgment to Denison because Benson was a third-party beneficiary of
Denison’s contract with the CIB is waived. See also Trial Rule 56(H) (“No
judgment rendered on the motion shall be reversed on the ground that there is a
genuine issue of material fact unless the material fact and the evidence relevant
thereto shall have been specifically designated to the trial court.”)
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 16 of 17
[28] The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Denison
upon Benson’s negligence claim.
[29] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CT-372 | July 26, 2017 Page 17 of 17
Jennifer Benson v. Denison Parking, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion