Steven Walton and D. Walton v. Derrick Powell, Carl Jennings, Dewalet Brown, and State Farm Insurance Company (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 02 2019, 6:39 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Walton CARL JENNINGS Indianapolis, Indiana Mark S. Alderfer Charles J. Maiers Due Doyle Fanning & Alderfer, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY Cary J. Solida State Farm Litigation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven Walton and D. Walton, August 2, 2019 Appellants-Plaintiffs, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PL-566 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Derrick Powell, Carl Jennings, The Honorable Timothy W. Dewalet Brown, and State Farm Oakes, Judge Insurance Company, Trial Court Cause No. Appellees-Defendants 49D02-1804-PL-16226

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-566 | August 2, 2019 Page 1 of 3

Baker, Judge. [1] Steven Walton1 appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that the trial court erred.

Finding no error, we affirm. [2] On April 3, 2018, Walton was involved in a multi-vehicle automobile accident

in the middle of an intersection. Walton suffered both physical and emotional

pain as a result of the incident. On April 27, 2018, Walton filed a complaint,

listing Derrick Powell, Carl Jennings, Dewalet Brown, and State Farm

Insurance Company (State Farm) as defendants. In the complaint, Walton

claimed that “[t]he Defendant Jennings and Brown are negligent under Indiana

State Law for not having Liability Insurance.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 21.

On October 24, 2018, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, to

which Walton objected. Later, on January 18, 2019, Walton filed an amended

complaint and jury demand with the same allegation. On January 30, 2019,

Jennings filed a motion to dismiss Walton’s amended complaint under Indiana

Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing that Walton failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, to which Walton also objected.

1 Though two appellants are listed in this appeal, only Steven Walton has filed a brief with this Court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-566 | August 2, 2019 Page 2 of 3 [3] Finally, on March 6, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the various

motions and thereafter granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment2

and Jennings’s motion to dismiss. Walton now appeals. [4] We review a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

de novo, giving no deference to the trial court’s determination. Bellows v. Bd. of

Com’rs of Cty. of Elkhart, 926 N.E.2d 96, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A motion to

dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a

complaint: “that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of

circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Arflack v.

Town of Chandler, 27 N.E.3d 297, 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [5] Here, Walton has not alleged any set of circumstances under which he would

be entitled to relief. Rather, Walton only claims that “[t]he Defendant Jennings

and Brown are negligent under Indiana State Law for not having Liability

Insurance.” There is no law in Indiana requiring people to carry liability

insurance. Furthermore, there is nothing else in Walton’s complaint that even

resembles a cognizable claim. As this is Walton’s only argument on appeal, we

hold that the trial court committed no error. [6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.

2 Walton does not appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-566 | August 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3