An agency error allegedly cost a Marion County man a job opportunity. Indiana Supreme Court justices are now weighing whether the state should — or even could — provide him relief. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
An Indiana man maintains that an agency error cost him a job opportunity, over $1,000 in fines and a night in jail — but state attorneys argued Thursday that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles isn’t responsible for any damages, instead directing him to an administrative review process.
“Even if there is an error, even if the bureau received accurate information from the courts and still did not accurately reflect that on the driving records, there’s still no private right of action to sue for damages,” said Frances Barrow, a deputy attorney general with the state.
Barrow, on behalf of the BMV, appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday and urged the justices to dismiss the case, as a trial court had already done.
But the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court’s findings, ruling that because Chris A. Kelly wasn’t challenging a driver’s license suspension — but rather the state’s failure to maintain accurate records — he qualified for judicial relief.
“Moreover, we note that if the BMV fails to accurately maintain individuals’ records as required by statute, it is not a mere technicality. Such a failure has real-life consequences, especially for the many individuals such as Kelly who have livelihoods that are dependent upon being able to legally drive a vehicle,” the three-judge panel ruled.
Following the ruling, the BMV petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene, though justices seemed wary of state arguments and unsure whether the law written by the General Assembly allowed for any remedy.
“Your client was very much harmed. He was arrested, (had) lots of fees (and) lost a job based on what you’re saying the BMV should have done,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush said to Kelly’s counsel. “… (but) how do we come up with, ‘BMV, you should keep your records in a way that doesn’t harm Indiana drivers?’
“How do we determine what the parameters are of the BMV’s duty?”.
Case background
Kelly, a Marion County resident, was pulled over in August 2020 for two “minor traffic infractions,” as outlined in a January 2023 complaint. A Marion County prosecutor twice sent SR16 records to the BMV to delete his related conviction and restore Kelly’s driving privileges around November of 2020 and February of 2021.
Still, law enforcement pulled Kelly over multiple times and the suspended license showed up on Kelly’s record, costing him a job for an outside sales position. Kelly reported paying more than $1,000 in tickets, at least 30 calls to the BMV alongside letters, emails and an in-person visit.
“(The BMV) breached the duty of care they are required to provide,” concluded Kelly’s complaint. “This has caused the plaintiff to not be able to work in his industry since 2020. Plaintiff cannot work in his field due to negligence of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.”
As summarized by his counsel, Daniel K. Burke told the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday that there is an implied right to sue in law. If there isn’t, he said Kelly has no remedy.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
But Barrow, with the state, argued that the proper avenue for relief for an alleged mistake was a material error review process — which can be initiated by submitting an application online — and not a court.
“There is no indication that the legislature intended that the 4.5 million Hoosiers with Indiana driver licenses may sue the Bureau for damages arising from incorrect driving records,” said Barrow.
Multiple justices questioned Barrow and Burke about the process and whether the court could rule on such relief — seeming to sympathize with Kelly’s plight.
Justice Christopher Goff noted that such a mistake appeared to linger on Kelly’s record for months without any action from the BMV.
“It seems to me that the statutory language, at least at this very early stage of the proceeding, could fairly be read to give this person some avenue for relief,” said Goff.
The courts, and not the administrative review process, were the proper venue to determine relief, argued Burke.
“This is something that the Court of Appeals, I believe, correctly pointed out: the material error review statute lists a number of provisions to which it applies and specifically does not include the driving record statute,” Burke said. “Now it does apply to court orders, but we’re not challenging the accuracy of the court order. We’re challenging the failure by the Bureau to maintain the accurate record.”
Rush and the rest of the justices didn’t indicate when to expect a ruling.
READ: Complaint for damages - 01/27/2023
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.
