OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary
Following Indianapolis attorney Lawrence W. Inlow’s funeral and burial, his widow, Anita, paid those expenses and then received reimbursement from his estate (“estate”). In turn, the Personal Representative of his estate and four of his five children sought reimbursement of these expenses from Inlow’s wrongful death settlement proceeds (“wrongful death proceeds”). The trial court approved this reimbursement. Anita filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the trial court had distributed proceeds from the wrongful death proceeds contrary to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. The trial court denied the motion, and Anita now appeals. She argues that Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 requires the payment of funeral and burial expenses from a wrongful death award to a decedent’s estate only where the award specifies what portion is attributable to funeral and burial expenses. Concluding that Inlow’s funeral and burial expenses were properly reimbursed to his estate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The relevant facts are that Inlow served as an executive vice president and general counsel of Conseco, Inc. On May 21, 1997, while disembarking from a company helicopter, Inlow was struck by a helicopter rotor blade and died instantly. He was survived by his second wife, Anita, and five children from his two marriages. Inlow’s children from his first marriage are Jason, Heather, Jeremy, and Sarah (the “older Inlow children”). His child with Anita is Jesse. Inlow died without a will to direct the distribution of his large estate, which was at one time worth more than $100,000,000. Appellant’s Br. p. 7 n. 1. After his funeral, Inlow was entombed in a mausoleum. The total cost of his funeral and burial was $284,034.00. Anita initially paid the costs of the funeral and burial.
After Inlow’s death, a Personal Representative was appointed for his estate. [736]*736Later, Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”) became the Successor Personal Representative of the estate. As a separate matter, Inlow’s heirs, acting through First National Bank and Trust Company (“First National”) as the appointed Special Administrator of a wrongful death action filed against a number of defendants, reached a wrongful death settlement with Conseco in the amount of approximately $884,713.11.1 The settlement was not itemized. Appellant’s App. p. 258-59. The trial court approved this settlement.
Anita sought and received reimbursement from Inlow’s estate for the $284,034.00 she paid for his funeral and burial. In turn, Fifth Third and the older Inlow children filed a claim seeking reimbursement of these expenses to the estate from Inlow’s wrongful death proceeds. Anita objected to the reimbursement.2 The trial court issued an order approving Fifth Third’s claim for reimbursement. Id. at 101. Anita filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the trial court distributed proceeds from the wrongful death proceeds contrary to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. The court denied the motion, and Anita now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Anita appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error. We review rulings on motions to correct errors for abuse of discretion. Baumgart ex rel. Baumgart v. DeFries, 888 N.E.2d 199, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. However, to the extent that we are reviewing the trial court’s interpretation and application of Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1, our review is de novo because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law. In re Paternity of H.H., 879 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).
This case revolves around the meaning and application of Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. When faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we first examine whether the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612, 618 (Ind.2007). If it is, we will not apply any rules of construction other than to require that words and phrases be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meanings. Id. However, when a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is deemed ambiguous and open to judicial construction. Id. It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that we will attempt to determine and [737]*737give effect to the intent of the Legislature, and, to this end, we read provisions of a statute together so that no part is rendered meaningless if it can be harmonized with the remainder of the statute. Id. We will not presume that a statute was to be applied in an illogical manner. State v. Hensley, 716 N.E.2d 71, 76 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.
Anita contends that the trial court erred in ordering the reimbursement of Mow's funeral and burial expenses from the wrongful death proceeds to the estate. She argues Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 allows only those damages expressly recovered for funeral and burial expenses to be reimbursed to the estate. Thus, because the wrongful death proceeds are for unspecified damages rather than for itemized damages, Anita argues that they may not be used to reimburse the estate for funeral and burial costs.
Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 provides in relevant part:
When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he or she, as the case may be, lived, against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission .... [T]he damages shall be in such an amount as may be determined by the court or jury, including, but not limited to, reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses, and lost earnings of such deceased person resulting from said wrongful act or omission. That part of the damages which is recovered for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expense shall inure to the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s estate for the payment thereof. The remainder of the damages, if any, shall, subject to the provisions of this article, inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow or widower, as the case may be, and to the dependent children, if any, or dependent next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as the personal property of the deceased.
(Emphasis added). The parties dispute the application of the requirement that the “part of the damages which is recovered for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expense shall inure to the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s estate for the payment thereof.” Ind.Code § 34-23-1-1. Anita contends that we cannot determine whether any of the wrongful death proceeds were recovered for funeral and burial expenses because the settlement does not specify the damages for which it sought to compensate Mow's heirs. Appellant’s Br. p. 8.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary
Following Indianapolis attorney Lawrence W. Inlow’s funeral and burial, his widow, Anita, paid those expenses and then received reimbursement from his estate (“estate”). In turn, the Personal Representative of his estate and four of his five children sought reimbursement of these expenses from Inlow’s wrongful death settlement proceeds (“wrongful death proceeds”). The trial court approved this reimbursement. Anita filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the trial court had distributed proceeds from the wrongful death proceeds contrary to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. The trial court denied the motion, and Anita now appeals. She argues that Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 requires the payment of funeral and burial expenses from a wrongful death award to a decedent’s estate only where the award specifies what portion is attributable to funeral and burial expenses. Concluding that Inlow’s funeral and burial expenses were properly reimbursed to his estate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The relevant facts are that Inlow served as an executive vice president and general counsel of Conseco, Inc. On May 21, 1997, while disembarking from a company helicopter, Inlow was struck by a helicopter rotor blade and died instantly. He was survived by his second wife, Anita, and five children from his two marriages. Inlow’s children from his first marriage are Jason, Heather, Jeremy, and Sarah (the “older Inlow children”). His child with Anita is Jesse. Inlow died without a will to direct the distribution of his large estate, which was at one time worth more than $100,000,000. Appellant’s Br. p. 7 n. 1. After his funeral, Inlow was entombed in a mausoleum. The total cost of his funeral and burial was $284,034.00. Anita initially paid the costs of the funeral and burial.
After Inlow’s death, a Personal Representative was appointed for his estate. [736]*736Later, Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”) became the Successor Personal Representative of the estate. As a separate matter, Inlow’s heirs, acting through First National Bank and Trust Company (“First National”) as the appointed Special Administrator of a wrongful death action filed against a number of defendants, reached a wrongful death settlement with Conseco in the amount of approximately $884,713.11.1 The settlement was not itemized. Appellant’s App. p. 258-59. The trial court approved this settlement.
Anita sought and received reimbursement from Inlow’s estate for the $284,034.00 she paid for his funeral and burial. In turn, Fifth Third and the older Inlow children filed a claim seeking reimbursement of these expenses to the estate from Inlow’s wrongful death proceeds. Anita objected to the reimbursement.2 The trial court issued an order approving Fifth Third’s claim for reimbursement. Id. at 101. Anita filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the trial court distributed proceeds from the wrongful death proceeds contrary to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. The court denied the motion, and Anita now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Anita appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error. We review rulings on motions to correct errors for abuse of discretion. Baumgart ex rel. Baumgart v. DeFries, 888 N.E.2d 199, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. However, to the extent that we are reviewing the trial court’s interpretation and application of Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1, our review is de novo because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law. In re Paternity of H.H., 879 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).
This case revolves around the meaning and application of Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. When faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we first examine whether the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612, 618 (Ind.2007). If it is, we will not apply any rules of construction other than to require that words and phrases be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meanings. Id. However, when a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is deemed ambiguous and open to judicial construction. Id. It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that we will attempt to determine and [737]*737give effect to the intent of the Legislature, and, to this end, we read provisions of a statute together so that no part is rendered meaningless if it can be harmonized with the remainder of the statute. Id. We will not presume that a statute was to be applied in an illogical manner. State v. Hensley, 716 N.E.2d 71, 76 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.
Anita contends that the trial court erred in ordering the reimbursement of Mow's funeral and burial expenses from the wrongful death proceeds to the estate. She argues Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 allows only those damages expressly recovered for funeral and burial expenses to be reimbursed to the estate. Thus, because the wrongful death proceeds are for unspecified damages rather than for itemized damages, Anita argues that they may not be used to reimburse the estate for funeral and burial costs.
Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 provides in relevant part:
When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he or she, as the case may be, lived, against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission .... [T]he damages shall be in such an amount as may be determined by the court or jury, including, but not limited to, reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses, and lost earnings of such deceased person resulting from said wrongful act or omission. That part of the damages which is recovered for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expense shall inure to the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s estate for the payment thereof. The remainder of the damages, if any, shall, subject to the provisions of this article, inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow or widower, as the case may be, and to the dependent children, if any, or dependent next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as the personal property of the deceased.
(Emphasis added). The parties dispute the application of the requirement that the “part of the damages which is recovered for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expense shall inure to the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s estate for the payment thereof.” Ind.Code § 34-23-1-1. Anita contends that we cannot determine whether any of the wrongful death proceeds were recovered for funeral and burial expenses because the settlement does not specify the damages for which it sought to compensate Mow's heirs. Appellant’s Br. p. 8. The older Inlow children counter that the statute does not call for itemization; instead, the statute requires that the wrongful death damages award be used first to reimburse a decedent’s estate for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses that were incurred whether or not a portion of the award was designated for these expenses.
The statute’s requirement that the damages “recovered for” funeral and burial expenses is ambiguous as to whether the damages must be expressly recovered for those things. However, as we read this provision in conjunction with the rest of the statute, as we must, it becomes apparent that the Legislature did not intend to impose an itemization requirement upon wrongful death awards. Nowhere in Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 is itemization of the bases for wrongful death awards mentioned. Further, when we look beyond Indiana Code chapter 34-23-1 to Indiana Code chapter 34-51-2, the portion of the code dealing with compensatory damages for injuries or death to a person or harm to property, we see that when such cases [738]*738are brought to trial before juries or judges, there is no statutory itemization requirement for damages. Rather, once the factfinder determines that recovery is not barred by the injured party’s level of fault, the factfinder uses the “total amount of damages the claimant would be entitled to recover if contributory fault were disregarded” as the starting point for calculating damages. Ind.Code § 34^-51 — 2—7(b)(3). The factfinder then multiplies this amount by the defendant’s percentage of fault, and the verdict is simply “the amount of the product of that multiplication.” I.C. § 34-51-2-7(b)(4). The verdict need not include an itemization of the components of the damages award.3 It would be illogical to impose an itemization requirement for wrongful death awards while no such requirement exists for other personal injury awards. We do not read Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 to require parties entering into a wrongful death settlement to itemize the settlement award. Instead, we agree with Goldman v. Cha, 704 N.E.2d 157, 158 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting I.C. § 34-23-1-1), trans. denied, that Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 simply requires that “damages over and above reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses, ‘shall inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow or widower, as the case may be, and to the dependent children’ or dependent next of kin.” Thus, Inlow’s undisputed funeral and burial expenses were properly reimbursed to his estate.
Regardless, here it is clear that a portion of the wrongful death proceeds were “recovered for” Inlow’s funeral and burial expenses. In its order denying Anita’s motion to correct error, the trial court expressly found, and we agree, that “First National Bank & Trust serving as Special Administrator in the Wrongful Death cause specifically referred to funeral and burial expenses in the Wrongful Death Complaintf.]” Appellant’s App. p. 246. See id. at 136 ¶ 9, 137 ¶ 15 (“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant ..., Lawrence W. Inlow suffered severe and permanent injuries resulting in death, causing his estate to incur significant burial expenses.... ”). It is thus apparent that the parties to the settlement contemplated, among the other damages to Inlow’s heirs, the cost of his funeral and burial, and the amount of the expenses incurred for these purposes is undisputed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anita’s motion to correct error.
Affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., concur.
MAY, J., dissents with separate opinion.