By Abrahm Hurt
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS–The leader of one of the state’s largest business organizations warns that a trade war with Mexico would be costly for Indiana consumers and industry alike.

“A 5% tariff would essentially raise taxes on Hoosiers by $226 million a year,” Kevin Brinegar, president and CEO of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said. “And a 25% tariff would effectively raise taxes on Hoosiers by $1.1 billion a year.”

Brinegar made his comments Monday after President Donald Trump that the United States would place a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports beginning July 1 because of Mexico’s failure to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants crossing from Central America into Mexico. The tariffs would gradually increase until they reach 25% in October if the immigration problem isn’t resolved.

Brinegar said Indiana is the nation’s 13th largest importer of Mexican goods, bringing in $4.5 billion worth of goods last year. Many Indiana businesses import component parts from Mexico that are made into finished goods in Indiana and then shipped out again, he explained. Top imports from Mexico include auto parts, gas and audio and video equipment as well as produce such as avocados and tomatoes.

Many Indiana businesses, like Carrier Corp., have set up operations in Mexico. Carrier has cut more than1,300 Hoosier jobs over the past few years as it shifted jobs south of the border. A spokesperson for Carrier’s parent, United Technologies, declined to comment on the tariffs or the impact on its business.

A trade war with Mexico would also be costly for Indiana’s farmers. Bob White, director of national government relations at Indiana Farm Bureau, said Mexico is Indiana’s second largest trade partner behind Canada. Tariffs would increase costs for consumers and Indiana farmers who import vegetables and vegetable transplants from Mexico this time of year.

“It will probably hurt our corn and soybean relationship with them, although right now, they’re still buying from us,” White said. “They were still buying from us with the 5% steel and aluminum tariff, although those have been lifted.”

White also said these tariffs could put the passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in jeopardy.

“We just got rid of the steel and aluminum tariff to hopefully ensure the passage of USMCA and now 5% on Mexico,” he said. “What’s that going to do to the expectations of passage?”

The USMCA would have replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, also known as NAFTA, as the principle trade agreement among the U.S., Mexico and Canada. USMCA includes changes for automakers, digital trade provisions, and intellectual property protections. It was signed by the three countries’ leaders in November and still needs to be ratified by each government.

Brinegar said the Indiana Chamber’s concern is that tariffs are not the right approach to trying to address an immigration issue.

“The issues with American immigration should be addressed more directly. Not indirectly through imposing tariffs that are essentially just raising taxes on the American people,” he said. “We’re punishing the American people for illegal immigration.”

As a trade war with Mexico looms, the U.S. and China continue their trade dispute. In May, the U.S. increased tariffs on Chinese goods by $200 billion, and China responded by increasing tariffs on U.S. goods by $60 billion.

Abrahm Hurt is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalists.

Staff Report
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS—Secretary of State Connie Lawson has partnered with other experts in fraud prevention to create IN-CASE, or the Indiana Council Against Senior Exploitation, to protect seniors against those who would exploit them.

IN-CASE began four years ago when the senior medical patrol director of the Indiana Association of Area Agencies on Aging (IAAAA) began hosting networking groups of government agencies and organizations.

These organizations aimed to serve older adults and educate them or their caregivers on how to prevent numerous types of fraud.

It is estimated that elderly citizens in America lose up to $36.5 billion dollars each year due to financial exploitation, abuse, and scams.

The number of older citizens in America is increasing rapidly, according to the Indiana Business Research Center with the IU Kelley School of Business. Chris Naylor with the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council believes that this creates a “growing marketplace for those who may be looking to take advantage of vulnerable adults.”

Lawson said she wants to use IN-CASE as an opportunity to improve their efforts by teaming up with others who are equally committed to protecting the senior citizens in Indiana. IN-CASE’s overall goal is to prevent and end senior exploitation and abuse by educating, encouraging, and empowering their citizens.

The Office of the Indiana Secretary of State and IAAAA are partnered with the Indiana FSSA Division of Aging, Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Better Business Bureau Serving Central Indiana, AARP Indiana, Indiana Legal Services, and other state, public, and private organizations.

Upon the creation of IN-CASE, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb has declared June 9-15 the Indiana Elder Abuse Awareness Week. To learn more about IN-CASE and their teachings, please visit www.IN-CASE.org.

TheStatehouseFile.com is a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Katie Stancombe for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a Hoosier trucking company’s amended complaint regarding a clause in a driver’s contract, although it found an error with the dismissal’s basis on lack of personal jurisdiction. Justices also said this case will prompt consideration of rules so litigants can move to enforce contractual forum-selection clauses.

In the case of Daniel O’Bryant, d/b/a O’Bryant Transport, LLC v. Alan P. Adams, Luan Adams, d/b/a A.L.A. Trucking, Inc.,18S-PL-584, Daniel O’Bryant sued A.L.A. Trucking in Madison Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract in its independent-contractor agreement with O’Bryant Transport LLC. Under the parties’ agreement, O’Bryant would provide trucking services and equipment to A.L.A. in exchange for certain compensation.

O’Bryant alleged A.L.A. treated him as an A.L.A. employee rather than an independent contractor and did not pay his salary or benefits for most of the year prior to the suit. A.L.A. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Trial Rule 12(B)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was barred because the contract includes a forum-selection clause requiring O’Bryant to sue in Texas, not Indiana.

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the phrase “this state” in the agreement’s forum-selection cause referred to Texas, not Indiana and that the clause was unambiguous, mandatory and enforceable. O’Byrant was also denied his motion to correct the error, which argued newly discovered evidence would show a Texas court would not enforce the clause.

Indiana Supreme Court justices affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the amended complaint in a Tuesday order and agreed that disputed forum-selection clause was mandatory and unambiguous in requiring that suit be brought in Texas. It also concluded that O’Bryant did not satisfy his burden of showing that the clause was invalid and thus unenforceable.

However, the high court noted an error in the lower’s court’s decision to base its dismissal on personal jurisdiction.

“We hold that a valid forum-selection clause does not divest a trial court of personal jurisdiction over parties otherwise subject to the court’s jurisdiction,” Justice Geoffrey Slaughter wrote. “Parties are free to consent to have their disputes litigated in a forum in which they would not otherwise be amenable to suit. And when they elect to do so, as here, they submit to the personal jurisdiction of the distant forum.

“But by consenting to personal jurisdiction in a different forum, they do not thereby deprive other jurisdictions — such as those where they live and do business — of personal jurisdiction, too,” Slaughter continued. “Personal jurisdiction is not a zero-sum game in which agreeing to personal jurisdiction elsewhere divests jurisdiction at home. Thus, the parties’ consent to suit in Texas did not deprive the court below of personal jurisdiction.”

Regardless, it found dismissal was nevertheless warranted.

Additionally, the high court offered an option of an alternative vehicle for relief in the form of a stand-alone motion to enforce the forum-selection clause. There, the argument could be made that the parties’ written agreement requires their dispute to be litigated elsewhere, the court advised.

“By recognizing this procedural vehicle, we do not foreclose other possible options for enforcing a forum-selection clause against a litigant that sued in an unapproved forum,” the justices concluded. “Once our opinion is certified, we will ask our rules committee to consider various options for amending our rules of trial procedure to formalize a process for enforcing forum-selection clauses.”

Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Mark Massa and Christopher Goff concurred. Justice Steven David concurred in the result.

Marriage Licenses Issued