IBJNews

Indiana appeals court hears welfare lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers representing Indiana asked an appeals court Monday to refund much of the money the state has paid IBM for a failed welfare privatization effort, but the company countered it's actually entitled to even more.

Former Gov. Mitch Daniels outsourced the intake of welfare clients to a team of private contractors led by IBM in 2006. He canceled the 10-year, $1.37 billion contract with Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM in 2009 amid widespread performance complaints from clients, their advocates and federal officials.

The state sued IBM for breach of contract, and the company countersued. Marion County Judge David Dreyer ruled last year that neither side deserved to win, but awarded IBM $52 million, including another $10 million in interest payments.

A three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals heard 45 minutes of arguments from both sides Monday.

The state told the judges that Dreyer erred in his reading of the law when awarding IBM a portion of what it had sought. Attorneys for IBM said the company should have actually received another $43 million in service fees and other costs because the state broke the contract.

Indiana officials have moved on since then with a hybrid version of the welfare system, led in part by one of IBM's former subcontractors on the projects, but the legal fighting has stretched on.

IBM lawyer Jay Lefkowitz said the company was shorted in the lower court because they are owed more in service fees and other costs included in the contract. Peter Rusthoven, a Barnes and Thornburg lawyer hired by the state, argued that the judgment should be tossed out because Dreyer followed the wrong court tests in determining the state owed IBM.

But both lawyers frequently returned to the same arguments they have been making since suits were first filed more than three years ago.

Lefkowitz said the state must, at least, pay for the IBM equipment it kept when it cancelled the contract.

"It makes perfect sense you have to buy this equipment if you want to use it," he said.

And Rusthoven returned to the central argument that IBM officials painted a rosy picture of improved operations and reduced costs when they sold the state on the contract, but quickly changed their tune when problems started popping up.

"Now, all of the sudden (they say), 'We're just the Geek Squad from Best Buy doing what you tell us to do'" Rusthoven said.

Appeals Judge John G. Baker did not offer a specific timeline for issuing an opinion in the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT