Judge rejects some of Indiana's claims against IBM

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The core issue in a dispute over a project to modernize Indiana's welfare system — whether IBM breached the billion-dollar contract — wasn't addressed when a judge dismissed 17 of the state's claims against the computer giant, an attorney for the state said Monday.

A Marion County judge rejected the state's allegations that IBM provided false information during the project. One of the dismissed claims would have allowed the state to collect triple damages.

"The main complaint against IBM for us is breach of contract ... and this does nothing with respect to that," said Peter Rusthoven, one of the private attorneys representing the state in this case. "The main issue is whether they did what they said they would."

Judge David Dreyer, who issued the order Sunday, is presiding over a trial that started last month of dueling lawsuits concerning the state's cancellation of IBM's nearly $1.4 billion contract with the Family and Social Services Administration. Gov. Mitch Daniels killed the contract in 2009, less than three years into its scheduled 10-year span amid wide-ranging performance complaints from clients, their advocates and federal officials.

Indiana is suing IBM for the $437 million it paid the company, and IBM is countersuing for about $100 million that it claims it's still owed.

The judge denied the state's claims that it was the victim of a crime, which would have made it eligible to collect triple damages, and that IBM's countersuit was frivolous.

"The State has introduced no credible evidence that IBM knowingly or intentionally made any false Statements to the State or any other governmental entity," Dreyer wrote in the eight-page order, which granted IBM's motion for summary judgment on some of the claims.

The company applauded the ruling and said it was looking forward to continuing its case this week.

"IBM's commitment serving the citizens of Indiana with the highest standards of business ethics and professional conduct has always been a priority," IBM said in a statement Sunday. A company spokesman said Monday that IBM would have no further comment on the order.

Rusthoven, the state's attorney, said the judge's order didn't set back the state's case because it affected only one area of the dispute and not the breach of contract claims. But he said the state's attorneys disagreed with the judge's order.

An expert in contract law generally agreed with Rusthoven.

"Typically, there are lots of claims that get thrown out and losing on some of those, you expect that," said Antony Page, a professor at Indiana University's McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis. "It's possible that the meat of the complaint is still there."

He said the state faced an uphill battle to win its claims that IBM's alleged falsehoods had risen to the criminal level.

"You're having to prove that the guy's a liar," Page said. "That's hard to do."

The trial in Marion County Superior Court began Feb. 27. Rusthoven said the trial likely will last into next week, and he doesn't expect the judge to rule for several weeks after that.


Post a comment to this story

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

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