IBJNews

New BMV class-action suit alleges drivers overcharged

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is facing new allegations that it overcharged drivers for multiple services.

Plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit could secure refunds for overcharges on vehicle registrations and other services if their suit succeeds. The suit could also open the way to further discovery of overcharges by the BMV.

The Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad LLP filed the lawsuit in October. A Marion County Superior Court Judge denied the state's request to dismiss the lawsuit last week, according to The Indianapolis Star.

The suit follows on the heels of a similar legal battle. The BMV agreed to settle a previous lawsuit this past August and refund $30 million to residents who had been overcharged for driver's licenses.

Cohen & Malad, which also filed the first BMV lawsuit, collected $6.3 million in attorney fees, or about 21 percent, of the $30 million awarded. Individuals who were overcharged received refunds of $3.50 to $15.

Cohen & Malad lawyer Irwin Levin called the court's ruling on the latest suit a victory for Hoosiers.

"The court has essentially ruled that the BMV can't simply say 'Trust us' and throw out the case," Levin said. "Hoosiers now get to ask the BMV the tough questions about this debacle and get the answers they deserve."

But BMV commissioner Don Snemis said he "respectfully disagrees" with the judge's ruling and plans to appeal the decision.

"Any BMV credits that were arguably due and owing to the people of Indiana have already been issued," he said. "The only thing sought by this lawsuit is more attorney fees for the class-action lawyers, which, if granted, will be paid by Hoosiers."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Blame the Lawyers?
    The BMV over charges you and it's the lawyers fault for filing suit? The State denied the accusation and would not return the money on their own and it's the lawyers fault? If I could go to another agency and get my license because of an overcharge and failure to rectify, like I can with most any business, then fine. For those blaming the attorneys for protecting your rights and money, please come to my business. I will be happy to sell you a Coke with a list price of $1.29 for $5. It is only $4 over and I could use the money.
  • Really
    Hey Tall Jim your sense of civic duty to take what was originally mine is well, quite touching. I'm beginning to well up here!! I'm over come with gratitude toward the lawyers benevolence.
  • Vultures
    Attorneys are like vulture...they just keep picking at the bones until all the meats gone. I agree the BMV errored, but no way should the attorneys make 6.3 million. The money will he paid by tax payers, so who is stealing from who?
  • Enough
    I can only assume that Tall Jim is an attorney as well. Yes, the BMV needs to get this issue fixed. However, I do not see a need to further enrich a vulture attorney tht has already benefited from this same issue. Is this to be an annual source of cash flow for Cohen & Malad? They can have my $3.65. Just get it fixed BMV!!!
  • Class Action
    You complain about the wrong thing--blaming the attorney. it's the BMV that goofed up and kept your money. If no one does class actions then citizens continue to get ripped.
    • Which judge denied the dismissal of this ridiculousness?
      Great. Another absurd class action where the "plaintiffs" get a few pennies and the class action attorneys get a new jet. No wonder this country is so screwed up these days.
      • Just a ...
        I got my $9 refund. I wonder if Mr. Levin will be spending his $6.3 million at the same place I spend my $9. Doubtful.

      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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

      2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

      3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

      4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

      5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

      ADVERTISEMENT