ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey P. Smith Scott M. Cohen
W. Randall Kammeyer John D. Barker
Hawk, Haynie, Kammeyer & Chickedantz Harry C. Bradley
Fort Wayne, Indiana Krohn & Moss, LTD
Chicago, Illinois
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 55S05-0504-CV-165
DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
SAMUEL AND DIANE YAEGER,
Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court, No. 55D03-0301-PL-2
The Honorable Jane Spencer Craney, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 55A05-0402-CV-65
_________________________________
December 7, 2005
Dickson, Justice.
When the trial court denied its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, the defendant,
Daimler Chrysler Corporation, brought this appeal without first seeking trial court certification to
initiate an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14. The plaintiffs, Samuel
and Diane Yaeger, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which a majority of a panel of the Court
of Appeals denied, holding that it had discretion to address the appeal under Indiana Appellate
Rule 66(B). Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 818 N.E.2d 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Judge
Vaidik dissented. We granted transfer. Agreeing with the dissent, we hold that Appellate Rule
66(B) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal that fails to comply with Appellate Rule 14.
Appeals from interlocutory orders are governed by Appellate Rule 14. Rule 14(A) enu-
merates specified types of interlocutory orders that may be taken as a matter of right, and Rule
14(B) provides that other interlocutory appeals may be taken "if the trial court certifies its order
and the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal." The trial court's denial of the de-
fendant's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration does not qualify for an interlocutory appeal
under 14(A), and thus may be the subject of an interlocutory appeal only upon both certification
by the trial court and acceptance by the Court of Appeals pursuant to 14(B). Appellate Rule
66(B) provides:
No appeal shall be dismissed as of right because the case was not finally disposed of in
the trial court or Administrative Agency as to all issues and parties, but upon suggestion
or discovery of such a situation, the Court may, in its discretion, suspend consideration
until disposition is made of such issues, or it may pass upon such adjudicated issues as
are severable without prejudice to parties who may be aggrieved by subsequent proceed-
ings in the trial court or Administrative Agency.
In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
denied, the court noted but rejected the suggestion by other panels of the Court of Appeals 1 that
jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals might be found outside Rule 14. Instead, the court fol-
lowed the reasoning of INB National Bank v. 1st Source Bank, 567 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App.
1991):
[Rule 66(B)] should not be interpreted as an alternative authorization to litigants to initate
interlocutory appeals apart from, or in addition to, the authorization provided by [Rule
14]. In addition, we believe it would constitute an abuse of discretion for this court to
grant an interlocutory appeal cognizable under [Rule 14(B)] where the trial court, as here,
has expressly refused or denied certification.
Id. at 1202. We agree.
For Daimler Chrysler to appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbi-
tration, it was required to first seek and obtain certification from the trial court authorizing an
appeal from the interlocutory order. This it failed to do. We therefore grant the Yaegers' motion
to dismiss the appeal.
1
Nass v. State ex rel. Unity Team, 718 N.E.2d 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied; N-
orthwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Stinnett, 698 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
2
This appeal is dismissed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
3