ÿWPCf ä'ÉpŸiL$m ]e~ CÒË~μ›‚±bT6H™.òòJŒé m+·†|L{ç6ØÀ"’Y8kÄeÐã[¾$¡(E1¾?bèÍmÐôùùLÜ/錸&)¾JHYÈÎ`9x`#¢èœ-tbÂl¹ÿàÐ/aäÍEtónæäœSr@|Ý¿'K×­Xã`Èw½*/4@›<„Ë•ªŒ~*0„ù—W œýË8XÚ­ÑV>.§¡§ ¬V•éˆjQ7û¸OJÊÀh&麰œÁl˜UUÏ©àñˆ/,”k; 6á²ø/Û=G8-EÓ!òjÏ)½÷+½”»U‹¢&S§DjˆdÈA‡Ì+@¢·qæ,=Jv*$ý½‘•:^«¦”èÛmͳ‹×úÅiæ5ޱSžÇŒ#pìVŽV*:ºìÇ£›´fj¤&í;ÊnÎ<ï¹ëDê%Ü?g-”Ah€à¦a‚ŽBáP@¢ï°=¾)Fü•ÛY‹Ê2â“*azèI ”æ¹O´¿/yƒWO[üyàÒòBcP¬R(gLt"” ­AñA°´ñ'Kl´:‰ *å$7­,uÌ”£›‰^'#F™å¤\‚Ò.ÿÙÕ(7Š^Â÷ŽBºøštJ­Â<I# þU2N  %W 0Œ]U>éUN'UNuU>Ãw@ 4A U U"Nd UN² E UN P 0f 0D€ oÄ „3Ä·{‘Ç™1`­‘!ö>'!4)U.UNk2UN¹23k3 B z6-—6Ä7Ì7%â7ƒ:CŠ;UNÍ<UN=i=cAUNäDUN2E7€EUN·FUNGÇSGUNKUNhKw¶KUN-MUN{MxÉMUNARUNR¸ÝRUN•VUNãV1WUNI[UN—[¡å[UN†aUNÔa_"bUNeUNÏe˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(dr$¡¡Ô€ XEXXXÔÔ€ XEXX XEÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?Ù<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular ”U•E–—V˜ ›EœeZi##3|x(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ñ ° Ñ(Ê(3¦4$¤¤Ý ƒr!ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó eÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs€named€numerous€other€defendants€in€their€complaint,€including€Utility€Safety€and€Design,Ð ° ÐInc.,€who€was€hired€by€Montezuma€to€inspect€and€advise€regarding€the€pipeline€system,€Black€PipelineÏConstruction,€who€had€allegedly€damaged€the€service€line€to€the€Downs'€home€while€performing€unrelated€workÏseveral€months€earlier,€Natural€Gas€Odorizing,€Inc.,€who€sold€Montezuma€the€odorant€for€the€gas,€PanhandleÏEastern€Pipeline€Company,€who€supplied€the€gas€to€Montezuma,€and€Vesta€Energy,€Inc.,€who€sold€the€gas€toÏPanhandle€Eastern€Pipeline.€€None€of€these€other€defendants€is€a€party€to€this€appeal. zÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€A€gathering€line€is€"a€pipeline€that€transports€gas€from€a€current€production€facility€to€a€transmissionÐ ° Ðline€or€main."€€A€transmission€line€is€"a€pipeline,€other€than€a€gathering€line,€that:Ìà  à(a)€€Transports€gas€from€a€gathering€line€or€storage€facility€to€a€distribution€center,€storage€facility,€or€¼à  àlarge€volume€customer€that€is€not€downstream€from€a€distribution€center;Ìà8  àà ` à(b)€Operates€at€a€hoop€stress€of€20€percent€or€more€of€SMYS;€orÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(c)€Transports€gas€within€a€storage€field.€€A€large€volume€customer€may€receive€similar€¼à ` àvolumes€of€gas€as€a€distribution€center,€and€includes€factories,€power€plants,€and€à @Ø à¼institutional€users€of€gas.Ð Ð Ð  ÐNeither€party€suggests€that€the€Downs'€service€line€was€either€a€gathering€line€or€a€transmission€line. ºÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Montezuma€also€argues€that€because€other€regulations€address€service„line€valves€and€do€not€containÐ ° Ðinspection€requirements,€"service€lines€and€service„line€valves€are€not€necessarily€encompassed€by€the€regulationsÏdealing€with€requirements€for€distribution€systems."€€Appellants'€Brief€at€11.€€We€disagree.€€The€regulations€toÏwhich€Montezuma€points€are€not€included€in€Subpart€M,€the€maintenance€provisions,€but€are€in€Subpart€G,€theÏconstruction€requirement€provisions.€€Therefore,€it€is€not€surprising€that€the€regulations€do€not€contain€inspectionÏrequirements.€€Further,€no€additional€regulations€within€Subpart€M,€the€maintenance€provisions,€refer€specificallyÏto€service„line€valves. Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€reject€Montezuma's€contention€that€it€was€the€Downs'€burden€to€prove€conclusively€that€noÐ ° Ðinspection€occurred.€€The€summary€judgment€standard€clearly€provides€that€after€the€movants€show€they€areÏentitled€to€summary€judgment,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€non„movant€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€ÏHere,€the€Downs€presented€evidence€that€no€record€of€an€inspection€existed.€€This€was€sufficient€to€satisfy€theirÏburden.€€It€was€then€incumbent€upon€Montezuma€to€come€forward€with€evidence€that€it€inspected€the€exposedÏpipeline,€particularly€because€this€evidence€was€within€Montezuma's€exclusive€control.€€To€require€the€DownsÏto€affirmatively€prove€that€the€pipeline€was€not€inspected€would€require€them€to€prove€a€negative,€somethingÏwhich€we€refuse€to€do. ½Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs€contend€that€the€valve€maintenance€portion€of€the€trial€court's€summary€judgment€orderÐ ° Ðwas€based€on€49€CFR€ðððð€192.161€and€192.365(c),€which€Montezuma€does€not€appeal,€as€well€as€49€CFR€ððÏ192.747.€€As€a€result,€the€Downs€argue€that€Montezuma€has€waived€any€error€in€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€However,Ïour€reading€of€the€trial€court's€summary€judgment€order€does€not€support€the€Downs'€contention.€€In€particular,Ïthe€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€Downs€sought€summary€judgment€on€all€three€valve€maintenance€provisions,Ïbut€its€order€granting€summary€judgment€was€limited€to€the€provision€of€49€CFR€ðð€192.747.€€Thus,€we€do€notÏfind€that€Montezuma€has€waived€any€error. 'Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs'€cross„appeal€was€originally€filed€as€an€interlocutory€appeal€under€Cause€No.€61A01„9611„Ð ° ÐCV„476.€€Because€the€issue€concerns€the€same€parties€and€arises€from€the€same€summary€judgment€order,Ïhowever,€it€has€been€consolidated€with€Montezuma's€appeal€by€order€of€the€Chief€Judge. £Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Montezuma€also€argues€that€the€Excavation€Regulation€is€not€intended€to€apply€to€the€Downs'Ð ° Ðsituation,€as€its€purpose€is€"to€prevent€persons€doing€excavation€work€from€unknowingly€damaging€undergroundÏpipelines."€€Appellant's€Brief€at€21.€€However,€the€question€of€whether€this€regulation€is€intended€to€benefit€theÏDowns,€and€whether€Montezuma's€violation€of€this€regulation€entitles€the€Downs€to€recover,€is€included€in€theÏdetermination€of€whether€a€violation€of€the€regulation€proximately€caused€the€Downs'€injuries.€€As€noted€in€theÏtrial€court's€order,€the€Downs€were€denied€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€proximate€cause.€€Thus,€we€needÏnot€consider€Montezuma's€argument.Ìà  àNevertheless,€we€find€it€hard€to€believe€that€the€Excavation€Regulation€was€solely€intended€to€protectÏthose€persons€involved€in€excavation€activities.€€Were€that€the€case,€the€regulation€would€not€require€writtenÏprocedures€for€informing€persons€in€the€vicinity€of€the€excavation€activities.€€Instead,€we€believe,€as€statedÏpreviously,€that€the€purpose€of€the€regulations€is€to€ensure€the€safety€of€all€persons,€including€the€Downs,€fromÏthe€highly„explosive€properties€of€natural€gas. ìÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Again,€we€reject€Montezuma's€contention€that€it€was€the€Downs'€responsibility€to€conclusivelyÐ ° Ðestablish€that€such€policies€did€not€exist,€as€the€evidence€whether€such€a€policy€existed€was€exclusively€in€theÏcontrol€of€Montezuma. Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€›The€Downs€contend€that€òòIn€re€Train€Collisionóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€present€case€because€theÐ ° МNICTD›€was€required€to€purchase€liability€insurance€by€statute,€whereas€Montezuma's€purchase€of€insurance€wasÏvoluntary.€€As€a€result,€the€Downs€argue€that,€unlike€the€œNICTD›,€Montezuma's€purchase€indicates€its€voluntaryÏwaiver€of€the€limitation€of€liability€provisions.€€However,€the€holding€œin€òòIn›€re€Train€Collisionóó€is€based€upon€theÐ 8ˆ Ðsame€statutory€provisions€at€issue€in€the€instant€case.€€Thus,€the€holding€is€unaffected€by€whether€theÏgovernmental€entity€in€question€was€required€to€purchase€insurance€or€merely€had€the€option€of€purchasingÏinsurance.€€In€fact,€the€holding€explicitly€states€that€the€fact€that€a€governmental€entity€has€the€power€to€purchaseÏinsurance€does€not€indicate€a€legislative€intent€for€such€a€purchase€to€waive€the€liability€limitations.€€òòIdóó.,€654Ð ˜ è МN.E.2d›€at€1146.€€As€a€result,€we€reject€the€Downs'€contention€that€the€cases€are€distinguishable. Ý ƒ¢Ô$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€!XµyXX XµyÔÔ€!&|Í&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€reject€Montezuma's€contention€that€it€was€the€Downs'€burden€to€prove€conclusively€that€noÐ ° Ðinspection€occurred.€€The€summary€judgment€standard€clearly€provides€that€after€the€movants€show€they€areÏentitled€to€summary€judgment,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€non„movant€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€ÏHere,€the€Downs€presented€evidence€that€no€record€of€an€inspection€existed.€€This€was€sufficient€to€satisfy€theirÏburden.€€It€was€then€incumbent€upon€Montezuma€to€come€forward€with€evidence€that€it€inspected€the€exposedÏpipeline,€particularly€because€this€evidence€was€within€Montezuma's€exclusive€control.€€To€require€the€DownsÏto€affirmatively€prove€that€the€pipeline€was€not€inspected€would€require€them€to€prove€a€negative,€somethingÏwhich€we€refuse€to€do.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular aÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€our€determination€that€Montezuma's€purchase€of€excess€liability€coverage€does€not€waiveÐ ° Ðthe€limitations€on€its€liability€results€in€a€benefit€to€Montezuma's€insurer:€the€excess€coverage€for€whichÏMontezuma€paid€is€now€illusory,€as€it€will€never€be€needed.€€In€light€of€this€result,€we€encourage€governmentalÏentities€and€their€insurers€to€review€their€policies€to€ensure€that€the€public€does€not€continue€to€pay€for€illusoryÏcoverage.€€We€further€note€that€it€may€be€appropriate€for€governmental€entities€who€have€paid€for€this€illusoryÏcoverage€to€seek€reimbursement€from€their€insurers. d #Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€IND.€CODE€ðððð€34„4„16.5„1€to€34„4„16.5„22. Ñ ° Ñ Ý ƒèæ$ÝÔ€+Xõ8XXXÔÔ€+Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€,Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€,&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs'€cross„appeal€was€originally€filed€as€an€interlocutory€appeal€under€Cause€No.€61A01„9611„Ð ° ÐCV„476.€€Because€the€issue€concerns€the€same€parties€and€arises€from€the€same€summary€judgment€order,Ïhowever,€it€has€been€consolidated€with€Montezuma's€appeal€by€order€of€the€Chief€Judge. yÝ ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€During€oral€argument,€Montezuma€conceded€that€it€had€not€inspected€the€valve€during€the€precedingÐ ° Ðcalender€year.€€ 9Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Oral€argument€was€held€in€this€cause€on€July€9,€1997,€in€Indianapolis.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ¦4$ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€&|è&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Normally€our€resolution€of€Issue€A€would€render€it€unnecessary€to€address€Montezuma's€remainingÐ ° Ðarguments.€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€the€total€extent€of€Montezuma's€liability€is€relevant€to€the€determinationÏof€the€liability€of€the€remaining€defendants€under€the€Comparative€Fault€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòShand€Mining,€Inc.€v.€ClayÐ `° ÐCounty€Bd.€of€Com'rsóó,€671€N.E.2d€477,€479„480€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(jury€may€consider€negligence€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðgovernmental€entity€in€allocating€fault€among€joint€tort€feasors,€even€though€governmental€entity€is€not€subjectÏto€liability€under€CFA),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€As€a€result,€we€will€address€Montezuma's€remaining€challenges€to€the€trialÐ è8 Ðcourt's€partial€summary€judgment€order. YÝ ƒèæ$ÝÔ€/Xõ8XXXÔÔ€/Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€0Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€0&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs€named€numerous€other€defendants€in€their€complaint,€including€Utility€Safety€and€Design,Ð ° ÐInc.,€who€was€hired€by€Montezuma€to€inspect€and€advise€regarding€the€pipeline€system,€Black€PipelineÏConstruction,€who€had€allegedly€damaged€the€service€line€to€the€Downs'€home€while€performing€unrelated€workÏseveral€months€earlier,€Natural€Gas€Odorizing,€Inc.,€who€sold€Montezuma€the€odorant€for€the€gas,€PanhandleÏEastern€Pipeline€Company,€who€supplied€the€gas€to€Montezuma,€and€Vesta€Energy,€Inc.,€who€sold€the€gas€toÏPanhandle€Eastern€Pipeline.€€None€of€these€other€defendants€is€a€party€to€this€appeal.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular -Ý ƒèæ$ÝÔ€2Xõ8XXXÔÔ€2Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€3Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€3&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Oral€argument€was€held€in€this€cause€on€July€9,€1997,€in€Indianapolis.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ½Ý ƒ¢Ô$ÝÔ€5XµyXXXÔÔ€5XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€6XµyXX XµyÔÔ€6&|Í&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Downs€contend€that€the€valve€maintenance€portion€of€the€trial€court's€summary€judgment€orderÐ ° Ðwas€based€on€49€CFR€ðððð€192.161€and€192.365(c),€which€Montezuma€does€not€appeal,€as€well€as€49€CFR€ððÏ192.747.€€As€a€result,€the€Downs€argue€that€Montezuma€has€waived€any€error€in€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€However,Ïour€reading€of€the€trial€court's€summary€judgment€order€does€not€support€the€Downs'€contention.€€In€particular,Ïthe€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€Downs€sought€summary€judgment€on€all€three€valve€maintenance€provisions,Ïbut€its€order€granting€summary€judgment€was€limited€to€the€provision€of€49€CFR€ðð€192.747.€€Thus,€we€do€notÏfind€that€Montezuma€has€waived€any€error.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular mÝ ƒèæ$ÝÔ€8Xõ8XXXÔÔ€8Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€9Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€9&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€During€oral€argument,€Montezuma€conceded€that€it€had€not€inspected€the€valve€during€the€precedingÐ ° Ðcalender€year.€€(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular nÝ ƒèæ$ÝÔ€;Xõ8XXXÔÔ€;Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€<Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€<&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€A€gathering€line€is€"a€pipeline€that€transports€gas€from€a€current€production€facility€to€a€transmissionÐ ° Ðline€or€main."€€A€transmission€line€is€"a€pipeline,€other€than€a€gathering€line,€that:Ìà  à(a)€€Transports€gas€from€a€gathering€line€or€storage€facility€to€a€distribution€center,€storage€facility,€or€¼à  àlarge€volume€customer€that€is€not€downstream€from€a€distribution€center;Ìà8  àà ` à(b)€Operates€at€a€hoop€stress€of€20€percent€or€more€of€SMYS;€orÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(c)€Transports€gas€within€a€storage€field.€€A€large€volume€customer€may€receive€similar€¼à ` àvolumes€of€gas€as€a€distribution€center,€and€includes€factories,€power€plants,€and€à @Ø à¼institutional€users€of€gas.Ð Ð Ð  ÐNeither€party€suggests€that€the€Downs'€service€line€was€either€a€gathering€line€or€a€transmission€line.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ®Ý ƒèæ$ÝÔ€>Xõ8XXXÔÔ€>Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€?Xõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€?&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Montezuma€also€argues€that€because€other€regulations€address€service„line€valves€and€do€not€containÐ ° Ðinspection€requirements,€"service€lines€and€service„line€valves€are€not€necessarily€encompassed€by€the€regulationsÏdealing€with€requirements€for€distribution€systems."€€Appellants'€Brief€at€11.€€We€disagree.€€The€regulations€toÏwhich€Montezuma€points€are€not€included€in€Subpart€M,€the€maintenance€provisions,€but€are€in€Subpart€G,€theÏconstruction€requirement€provisions.€€Therefore,€it€is€not€surprising€that€the€regulations€do€not€contain€inspectionÏrequirements.€€Further,€no€additional€regulations€within€Subpart€M,€the€maintenance€provisions,€refer€specificallyÏto€service„line€valves.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ¢Ô$ÝÔ€AXµyXXXÔÔ€AXµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÓ  ÓÔ€BXµyXX XµyÔÔ€B&|Í&XXµyÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Normally€our€resolution€of€Issue€A€would€render€it€unnecessary€to€address€Montezuma's€remainingÐ ° Ðarguments.€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€the€total€extent€of€Montezuma's€liability€is€relevant€to€the€determinationÏof€the€liability€of€the€remaining€defendants€under€the€Comparative€Fault€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòShand€Mining,€Inc.€v.€ClayÐ `° ÐCounty€Bd.€of€Com'rsóó,€671€N.E.2d€477,€479„480€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(jury€may€consider€negligence€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðgovernmental€entity€in€allocating€fault€among€joint€tort€feasors,€even€though€governmental€entity€is€not€subjectÏto€liability€under€CFA),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€As€a€result,€we€will€address€Montezuma's€remaining€challenges€to€the€trialÐ è8 Ðcourt's€partial€summary€judgment€order.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular —Ý ƒèæ$ÝÔ€DXõ8XXXÔÔ€DXõ8XX Xõ8ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€EXõ8XX Xõ8ÔÔ€E&LÛ&XXõ8Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Montezuma€also€argues€that€the€Excavation€Regulation€is€not€intended€to€apply€to€the€Downs'Ð ° Ðsituation,€as€its€purpose€is€"to€prevent€persons€doing€excavation€work€from€unknowingly€damaging€undergroundÏpipelines."€€Appellant's€Brief€at€21.€€However,€the€question€of€whether€this€regulation€is€intended€to€benefit€theÏDowns,€and€whether€Montezuma's€violation€of€this€regulation€entitles€the€Downs€to€recover,€is€included€in€theÏdetermination€of€whether€a€violation€of€the€regulation€proximately€caused€the€Downs'€injuries.€€As€noted€in€theÏtrial€court's€order,€the€Downs€were€denied€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€proximate€cause.€€Thus,€we€needÏnot€consider€Montezuma's€argument.Ìà  àNevertheless,€we€find€it€hard€to€believe€that€the€Excavation€Regulation€was€solely€intended€to€protectÏthose€persons€involved€in€excavation€activities.€€Were€that€the€case,€the€regulation€would€not€require€writtenÏprocedures€for€informing€persons€in€the€vicinity€of€the€excavation€activities.€€Instead,€we€believe,€as€statedÏpreviously,€that€the€purpose€of€the€regulations€is€to€ensure€the€safety€of€all€persons,€including€the€Downs,€fromÏthe€highly„explosive€properties€of€natural€gas.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular UÝ ƒèæ$ÝÔ€GX…2XXXÔÔ€GX…2XX X…2ÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€HX…2XX X…2ÔÔ€H&¼Ç&XX…2Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€our€determination€that€Montezuma's€purchase€of€excess€liability€coverage€does€not€waiveÐ ° Ðthe€limitations€on€its€liability€results€in€a€benefit€to€Montezuma's€insurer:€the€excess€coverage€for€whichÏMontezuma€paid€is€now€illusory,€as€it€will€never€be€needed.€€In€light€of€this€result,€we€encourage€governmentalÏentities€and€their€insurers€to€review€their€policies€to€ensure€that€the€public€does€not€continue€to€pay€for€illusoryÏcoverage.€€We€further€note€that€it€may€be€appropriate€for€governmental€entities€who€have€paid€for€this€illusoryÏcoverage€to€seek€reimbursement€from€their€insurers.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÝ ƒr!ÝÔ€ XµyXXXÔÔ€ XµyXX XµyÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÝ  Ý›ÑаÑÑ€°ÑÓ-°,X°Úp’X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÔ€XµyXX XµyÔò òÔ‡RERXXµyÔÑ  ÑÑ€OYÑœFOR€PUBLICATIONÔ#†XµyXRRE÷#ԛР€ ÐÌó óòòÌATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLANTSóó:à  àòòATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLEEóó:Ð    ÐÌò òWILLIAM€H.€KELLEYó óà  àò òGEORGE€M.€PLEWSó óÐ x ø Ðò òJENNIFER€A.€BAUERó óà  àò òJEFFREY€D.€CLAFLINó óÐ d ä ÐKelly,€Belcher€&€Brownà  àò òDONNA€C.€MARRONó óÐ PÐ ÐBloomington,€Indianaà  àPlews€Shadley€Racher€&€BraunÐ @À Ðà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÌÌßA€$) °°xdE°xAßÐ „  ÐÌÔ€XµyXXXµyÔÔ€RERXXµyÔà@'ìàò òIN€THEˆÐ ÿ  Ðà@ø ø ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€INDIANAó óˆÐ GÇ  ÐÌÔ€Rè[RRREÔÔ€X¨^XRRè[ÔÔ‡X¨^XXX¨^ÔßA€$) °°xdE°ÚxAßÔ#†X¨^XXX¨^ˆ#ÔÐ Û[ ÐÌÔ€ XµyXXX¨^ÔTOWN€OF€MONTEZUMA€and€MONTEZUMAà  à)Ð ²2 ÐMUNICIPAL€GAS€UTILITY,à  à)Ð ž ÐÓ<°,XƒXÚp’X°,X°Úp’X<Óà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellants/Cross„Appellees„Defendants,à  à)Ð vö Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àvs.à  à)à Ú àNo.€61A01„9701„CV„13Ð NÎ Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌKRISTY€S.€DOWNS,€INDIVIDUALLY€ANDà  à)Ð &¦ ÐAS€PERSONAL€REPRESENTATIVE€OF€THEà  à)Ð ’ ÐESTATE€OF€IVAN€DEAN€DOWNS,€AND€ASà  à)Ð þ~ ÐGUARDIAN€OF€SUSAN€DOWNS€ANDà  à)Ð ê j ÐMATTHEW€DOWNS,à  à)Ð Ö!V Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àœAppellee/Cross„Appellant„Plaintiff.›à  à)Ð ®#. ÐÌÔ‡X¨^XX XµyÔßA€$) °°xdÿÿE°…%xAßÔ#† XµyXXX¨^È#ÔÐ †%! ÐÌà@ò ò ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PARKE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@  ìàThe€Honorable€Thomas€K.€Milligan,€Special€JudgeˆÌà@ìàCause€No.€61C01„9403„CP„81ˆÌÌÔ‡X¨^XX XµyÔßA€$) °°xdÿÿE°0*xAßÔ#† XµyXXX¨^ #ÔÐ 1*±"' ÐÌò òà@ÚÚ"ìàœñ‘ñññSeptemberñññ‘ññ‘ñSeptemberñ‘ñ€ñ’ñ9,€1997ñ’ñ›ˆÐ ,+¬#) ÐÌà@BB#ìàœFOR€PUBLICATION›ˆÌÌâ âBAKER,€JudgeÐ Ü.\'-s ÐÑOYÑѰ€ÑÑ  Ññ’ñÑOYÑѰ€ÑÑ  Ññ’ñó óÑ7€µyXXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓÔ€XµyXX XµyÔÔ€ŠÀ ŠXXµyÔÓ- °§X°,XƒXÚp’X-Óà  àIn€this€interlocutory€appeal,€appellants/cross„appellees€Town€of€Montezuma€andÐ ° Ðâ âMontezuma€Municipal€Gas€Utility€(Montezuma)€challenge€the€trial€court's€grant€of€partialÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€appellee/cross„appellant€Kristy€S.€Downs€individually,€asÏpersonal€representative€of€the€Estate€of€Ivan€Dean€Downs,€and€as€guardian€of€Susan€andÏMatthew€Downs.€€In€particular,€Montezuma€contends€that€genuine€issues€of€material€factÏexist€which€preclude€the€entry€of€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€its€violation€of€severalÏfederal€regulations.€€On€cross„appeal,€Downs€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€deniedÏher€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whether€Montezuma€waived€the€limitationÏof€liability€provisions€of€Indiana's€Tort€Claims€Act€(ITCA).ñ“ñ׃×ñ“ññ“ñ׃(×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ ÐÓ  ÓòòFACTSóóÐ h¸ ÐÓ.Óà  àAt€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€January€21,€1993,€a€natural€gas€explosion€destroyedÏthe€Downs'€home,€killing€Ivan€Dean€Downs€and€injuring€Kristy,€Suzanne€and€MatthewÏDowns€(hereinafter€collectively€the€Downs).€€€Specifically,€the€explosion€occurred€after€aÏnatural€gas€pipeline€leading€into€the€Downs'€home€œcorroded€and›€leaked€œgas,€which›€ignited.€ÏThis€pipeline€was€installed€by€Montezuma€in€1934€and€placed€into€service€in€1942.€ÏAlthough€the€pipeline€leading€into€the€Downs'€home€was€made€of€bare€steel,€Montezuma€hadÏimplemented€a€plan€in€the€early€1990's€to€systematically€replace€all€of€the€pipelines€withinÏits€system€with€polyethylene€pipe,€which€is€less€susceptible€to€corrosion€than€steel.€€As€partÏof€this€plan,€Montezuma€had€replaced€the€steel€gas€main€on€Jefferson€Street,€in€front€of€theÐ  (p#$ ÐDowns'€home,€with€a€polyethylene€gas€main.€€During€this€excavation,€œalthough›€a€portion€ofÏthe€Downs'€service€line€was€exposed€in€order€that€the€new€pipeline€could€be€run€under€theÏDowns'€line,€the€Downs'€pipeline€was€not€replaced.Ìà  àFollowing€the€explosion,€federal,€state€and€local€authorities€investigated.€€SoonÏthereafter,€the€National€Transportation€and€Safety€Board€(NTSB)€concluded€that€theÏexplosion€had€been€caused€by€corrosion€of€the€bare€steel€service€pipe€which€connected€theÏDowns'€home€with€the€gas€main€on€Jefferson€Street.€€Specifically,€the€NTSB's€reportÏprovided€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  à[T]he€probable€cause€of€the€accident€was€the€failure€of€a€corroded€bare€steelÏcoupling€under€stress€from€a€growing€tree€root€pressing€downward€on€the€curbÏbox€and€transferring€the€load€to€the€pipe€and€coupling.€€Contributing€to€theÏaccident€was€the€failure€of€Montezuma€Utilities€to€have€an€adequateÏsurveillance€program€to€detect€corrosion€and€external€forces€such€as€thoseÏcreated€by€the€tree.ÓÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐRecord€at€86.Ìà  àOn€March€8,€1994,€the€Downs€filed€a€complaint€against€Montezuma,€alleging€that€itÏnegligently€operated€and€maintained€its€pipeline€system.œñ“ñ׃×ñ“ññ“ñ׃.×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Thereafter,€the€Downs€filed€aÐ D” Ðmotion€for€partial€summary€judgment,€claiming€that€Montezuma€was€negligent€per€se€forÏviolating€several€federal€pipeline€safety€regulations.€€R.€at€44.€€Additionally,€the€DownsÏargued€that€because€Montezuma€had€purchased€insurance€in€excess€of€the€liability€limitationsÏprovided€in€the€ITCA,€it€had€waived€those€liability€limits.€€Ð $'t"# Ðà  àOn€September€20,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€the€Downs'€motion€in€part€and€deniedÏit€in€part.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Ô‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔMontezuma€was€negligent€per€se€forÐ ¨ø Ðviolating€49€CFR€ðð€192.747€(Valve€Maintenance€Regulation),€which€requires€yearlyÏmaintenance€of€those€valves€"which€may€be€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€of€a€distributionÏsystem,"€and€that€this€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€Downs'€injury.€€Ô#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀ)#ÔIn€addition,Ð  à Ðthe€court€held€that€Montezuma€had€violated€€49€CFR€ðð€192.459€(Exposed€PipelineÏRegulation),€which€requires€pipeline€operators€to€inspect€for€corrosion€any€time€a€buriedÏpipeline€is€exposed,€and€49€CFR€ðððð€192.613€and€192.614(a)€(Surveillance€and€ExcavationÏRegulations),€which€require€the€utility€to€have€procedures€for€surveillance€of€corroded€linesÏand€for€prevention€of€damage€by€excavation€activities.€€However,€the€court€determined€thatÏgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€existed€regarding€whether€Montezuma's€failure€to€inspect€theÏexposed€pipeline€and€develop€œsurveillance€and€excavation€procedures›€was€the€proximateÏcause€of€the€Downs'€damage.€€Finally,€the€court€determined€that€œMontezuma's€purchase€ofÏexcess€liability€insurance€did›€not€œwaive›€the€limitation€of€liability€provisions€of€the€ITCA.€ÏAs€a€result,€the€trial€court€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Downs€on€the€issue€ofÏMontezuma's€negligence€and€liability,€but€denied€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€theÏITCA.€€Both€parties€now€appeal.€ÌÓ  ÓòòDISCUSSION€AND€DECISIONóóœñ“ñ׃*×ñ“ññ“ñ׃1×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР(&x!" Ðâ âòòI.€€Standard€of€ReviewóóÐ  (p#$ ÐÓÁ Óà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€no€genuine€controversy€exists.€€òòO'NealÐ ° Ðâ âv.€Throopóó,€596€N.E.2d€984,€986€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€In€reviewing€theÐ ¨ø Ðpropriety€of€the€grant€of€summary€judgment,€this€court€applies€the€same€standard€as€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòIdóó.€€The€party€seeking€summary€judgment€has€the€initial€burden€of€demonstrating€thatÐ ˜ è Ðno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€and€that€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matterÏof€law.€€Ind.Trial€Rule€56(C);€òòWhiteco€Industries,€Inc.€v.€Nickolickóó,€571€N.E.2d€1337,€1339Ð ˆØ  Ð(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€Once€the€movant€presents€pleadings,€depositions,Ð €Ð  Ðanswers€to€interrogatories,€admissions€or€affidavits€showing€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€summaryÏjudgment,€the€non„movant€cannot€rest€on€his€pleadings,€but€must€set€forth€specific€factsÏestablishing€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€€òòOgden€Estate€v.€Decatur€County€Hosp.óó,€509Ð h¸ ÐN.E.2d€901,€902€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1987),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€A€failure€to€establish€a€disputed€issueÐ `° Ðof€material€fact€will€result€in€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€provided€the€movant€is€entitledÏto€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòIdóó.Ð P  ÐÓ  ÓòòII.€€Federal€RegulationsóóÐ H˜ ÐÓ$'Óà  àMontezuma€challenges€the€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏDowns€on€the€basis€of€its€alleged€violation€of€several€federal€regulations.€€Under€Indiana€law,Ïan€unexcused€or€unjustified€violation€of€a€duty€dictated€by€a€statute€is€negligence€per€se.€ÏòòInland€Steel€v.€Pequignotóó,€608€N.E.2d€1378,€1383€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€œ1993),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.›€Ð (&x!" ÐBefore€determining€that€the€violation€of€a€statute€constitutes€negligence,€however,€the€courtÏmust€scrutinize€the€statute€and€consider€"the€purpose€of€the€enactment,€the€persons€whom€itÏwas€intended€to€protect€and€the€injuries€which€it€was€intended€to€prevent."€€òòIdóó.,€òòquotingóóÐ ,`'( ÐòòReuille€v.€Bowersóó,€409€N.E.2d€1144,€1148€(Ind.€œCt.›€App.€1980).€Ð .X)* Ðà  àIn€addition€to€determining€whether€a€defendant€violated€a€duty€dictated€by€statute,€theÏcourt€must€also€consider€whether€the€breach€was€the€proximate€cause€of€any€injury.€€òòIdóó.€€"TheÐ ¨ø Ðviolation€of€a€statute€raises€no€liability€for€injury€to€another€unless€the€injury€was€in€someÏmanner€the€result€of€such€violation."€€òòConway€v.€Evansóó,€549€N.E.2d€1092,€1095€(Ind.€Ct.Ð ˜ è ÐApp.€1990).€€In€order€for€an€injury€to€be€the€proximate€result€of€a€statutory€violation,€theÏinjury€must€have€been€a€foreseeable€consequence€of€the€violation€and€would€not€haveÏoccurred€if€the€requirements€of€the€statute€had€been€observed.€€œòòRay›€v.€Goldsmithóó,€400€N.E.2dÐ €Ð  Ð176,€179€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1980).ÌÓ  ÓòòA.€€Valve€Maintenance€RegulationóóÐ pÀ ÐÓ’-Óà  àFirst,€Montezuma€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïthat€it€violated€the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation,€49€CFR€ðð€192.747,€and€that€this€violationÏwas€the€proximate€cause€of€the€Downs'€damages.œñ“ñ׃×ñ“ññ“ñ׃4×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€The€Valve€Maintenance€RegulationÐ X¨ Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€"[e]ach€valve,€òòthe€use€of€which€may€be€necessary€forÐ P  Ðthe€safe€operation€of€a€distribution€systemóó,€must€be€checked€and€serviced€at€intervals€notÐ H˜ Ðexceeding€15€months,€but€at€least€once€each€calendar€year."€(emphasis€added).€€AccordingÏto€Montezuma,€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Downs€was€inappropriate€because€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€regarding€whether€the€valve€on€the€pipeline€leading€toÏthe€Downs'€home€was€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€of€a€distribution€system€and,€therefore,Ð (&x!" Ðwhether€the€regulation€applies€in€the€instant€case.€€Additionally,€Montezuma€argues€thatÏissues€of€fact€exist€regarding€whether€its€failure€to€inspect€the€valve€was€the€proximate€causeÏœof›€the€Downs'€injuries.œñ“ñ׃)×ñ“ññ“ñ׃7×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР ð ÐÓ  Óòò1.€€Application€of€the€RegulationóóÐ ˜ è ÐÓP3Óà  àInitially,€we€address€Montezuma's€argument€regarding€the€application€of€the€ValveÏMaintenance€Regulation.€€As€previously€stated,€the€inspection€requirements€of€the€ValveÏMaintenance€Regulation€œonly€apply›€œto›€valves€which€are€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€ofÏa€distribution€system.€€According€to€Montezuma,€the€regulation€is€inapplicable€because€theÏvalve€at€issue€in€the€present€case€was€a€service„line€valve,€rather€than€a€distribution€valve.Ìà  àIn€support€of€its€argument,€Montezuma€designated€the€affidavit€of€Rick€Nichols,€theÏsuperintendent€of€Montezuma€Utilities,€who€stated€that€a€distribution€valve€services€a€largeÏarea€and€would€only€be€found€on€a€main€pipeline,€as€opposed€to€a€pipeline€servicing€a€singleÏresidence.€€Additionally,€Montezuma€cited€its€own€operating€and€maintenance€plan,€whichÏprovides€that€the€Utility€will€"maintain€a€list€of€all€distribution€valves€necessary€for€the€safeÏoperation€of€the€distribution€system."€€R.€at€1046.€€Because€the€Downs'€service„line€valveÏwas€not€on€this€list,€Montezuma€claims€that€the€valve€was€not€necessary€for€the€safeÏoperation€of€the€distribution€system.Ìà  àThe€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation€is€a€subpart€of€Part€192,€which€is€entitled,ÏTransportation€of€Natural€and€Other€Gas€by€Pipeline:€Minimum€Federal€Safety€Standards.€ÏThe€definitions€applicable€to€Part€192€are€contained€in€49€CFR€ðð€192.3,€which€provides€thatÐ *h%& Ða€distribution€line€is€"a€pipeline€other€than€a€gathering€or€transmission€line."ñ“ñ׃×ñ“ññ“ñ׃:×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€regulationÐ ° Ðfurther€defines€a€service€line€as€"a€distribution€line€that€transports€gas€from€a€common€sourceÏof€supply€to€(1)€a€customer€meter€or€the€connection€to€a€customer's€piping,€whichever€isÏfarther€downstream,€or€(2)€the€connection€to€a€customer's€piping€if€there€is€no€customer'sÏmeter."€€These€definitions€clearly€indicate€that€a€distribution€line€necessarily€includes€allÏservice€lines,€which€are€merely€subsets€of€distribution€lines.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€Downs'€service„line€valve,€which€connected€the€Downs'€service€line€to€the€mainÏdistribution€line,€is€a€part€of€the€entire€distribution€system.€€Therefore,€the€Downs'€service„¼line€valve€is€subject€to€the€maintenance€and€inspection€requirements€of€the€ValveÏMaintenance€Regulation.ñ“ñ׃( ×ñ“ññ“ñ׃=( ×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h¸ Ðà  àHaving€determined€that€the€Downs'€service„line€valve€was€a€distribution€valve,€weÏnow€consider€whether€the€valve€was€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€of€the€distributionÏsystem.€€As€previously€noted,€the€yearly€inspection€requirement€contained€in€the€ValveÐ P  ÐMaintenance€Regulation€applies€only€to€those€valves€which€are€necessary€for€the€safeÏoperation€of€the€distribution€system.€€However,€the€regulation€does€not€contain€a€test€or€otherÏprovision€for€determining€whether€a€valve€is€œwithin€the€regulation.›€€Thus,€we€turn€to€anotherÏcourt€which€has€considered€this€œissue€for€guidance.›Ìà  àIn€òòÔ‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔBrady€v.€Consol.€Edison€Co.€of€New€York,€Incóó.€425€N.Y.S.2d€444€œ(N.Y.€Sup.€Ct.Ð  à Ð1979)Ô#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀ+@#Ô,›€a€New€York€trial€court€considered€the€scope€of€a€utility's€duty€to€inspect€œpursuant€to›Ð ˆØ  Ðthe€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation€after€a€gas€line€inside€a€building€separated,€leaked€gas€andÏexploded.€€According€to€the€utility,€the€gas€line€did€not€fall€within€the€Valve€MaintenanceÏRegulation's€€inspection€requirements€because€it€was€located€inside€a€building.€€In€addressingÏthis€issue,€the€New€York€court€first€noted€œthat€through›€its€natural€gas€regulations,€the€OfficeÏof€Pipeline€Safety€"has€jurisdiction€.€.€.€to€regulate€the€transportation€of€gas€to€the€pointÏwhere€it€is€used€by€the€consumer."€€òòIdóó.€at€445.€€The€court€then€determined€that€the€valve€inÐ X¨ Ðquestion,€which€was€located€inside€the€building,€did€not€fall€within€the€regulations€because:ÌÓÓà8  à[t]he€valves€encompassed€by€[the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation]€are€onlyÏthose€which€would€significantly€reduce€the€time€it€takes€an€operator€to€safelyÏstop€the€flow€of€gas€in€an€emergency.€€Intended€by€this€section€are€only€curbÏvalves€or€distribution€system€sectionalizing€valves€which€enable€the€operatorÏto€shut€down€a€section€or€grid€the€distribution€system€in€an€emergency.ÓÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòIdóó.€at€446.Ð 0$€  Ðà  àSimilarly,€we€find€that€the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation's€reference€to€valves€whichÏare€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€of€a€distribution€system€is€intended€to€include€thoseÏvalves€which€enable€the€utility€to€safely€handle€a€natural€gas€emergency.€€In€the€instant€case,Ïthe€accident€report€prepared€by€the€NTSB,€which€Montezuma€does€not€dispute,€reveals€thatÏimmediately€after€the€explosion,€Montezuma€shut€down€several€gas€lines€in€order€toÐ .X)* Ðminimize€the€damage.€€In€particular,€the€report€reveals€that€Montezuma€shut€down€the€gasÏmeter€to€the€Downs'€demolished€home€and€another€polyethylene€gas€line,€presumably€locatedÏon€the€main€gas€line€running€outside€the€Downs'€home.€€Additionally,€Montezuma€shut€downÏthe€valve€located€in€the€curb€box€outside€the€Downs'€home,€which€connected€the€Downs'Ïservice€line€to€the€main€gas€line.€€In€order€to€access€the€curb€box,€however,€Montezuma€hadÏto€excavate€a€large€tree€which€had€"grown€over€and€around€the€curb€box€and€the€service€line.€ÏThe€roots€from€this€tree€had€to€be€cut€with€a€backhoe€to€complete€the€excavation."€€R.€at€85.€Ïà  àFrom€this€evidence,€it€is€apparent€that€the€œDowns'€service„line›€valve,€located€insideÏthe€curb€box,€was€necessary€for€Montezuma€to€shut€off€the€flow€of€gas€to€the€Downs'€homeÏin€an€emergency.€€Because€Montezuma€failed€to€present€evidence€to€the€contrary,€other€thanÏits€argument€that€the€valve€was€not€part€of€the€distribution€system,€we€must€conclude€that€theÏDowns'€service„line€valve€was€necessary€for€the€safe€operation€of€the€distribution€system€and,Ïthus,€was€within€the€scope€of€the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation.€€ÌÓ  Óòò2.€€Violation€of€the€RegulationóóÐ H˜ ÐÓLLÓà  àHaving€determined€that€the€Downs'€service„line€valve€was€subject€to€the€yearlyÏinspection€requirements€of€the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation,€we€must€consider€whetherÏMontezuma€violated€these€requirements.€€The€record€in€the€instant€case€reveals€that€the€œtree›Ïroot€which€overgrew€the€curb€box€œplaced€pressure€on€the›€œcorroded›€steel€œservice€line,›€whichÏcaused€the€gas€to€leak.€€Ô‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔFurther,€it€is€apparent€from€the€extent€of€effort€necessary€to€accessÐ  (p#$ Ðthe€curb€box€that€Montezuma€did€not€inspect€or€maintain€the€valves€on€a€yearly€basis€asÏrequired€by€the€regulation.€€œÔ#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀ,N#ÔFinally,€Montezuma€presents€no€evidence,€such€as€records€orÐ ,`'( Ðtestimony,€that€it€engaged€in€such€inspection.€€Although›€we€are€required€to€construe€all€factsÐ .X)* Ðand€inferences€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€we€find€no€issue€of€fact€exists€regardingÏwhether€Montezuma€violated€its€statutory€duty€to€inspect€and€maintain€the€Downs'€service„¼line€valve.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏDowns€on€this€issue.ÌÓ  Óòò3.€€Proximate€CauseóóÐ  à ÐÓ$QÓà  àNext,€Montezuma€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€as€a€matter€of€lawÏthat€its€violation€of€the€Valve€Maintenance€Regulation€was€the€proximate€cause€of€theÏDowns'€damage.€€As€we€previously€noted,€tÔ‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔhe€violation€of€a€statute€does€not€result€in€liabilityÐ xÈ  Ðunless€the€injury€was€in€some€manner€proximately€caused€by€the€violation.€€òòConwayóó,€549Ð pÀ ÐN.E.2d€at€1095.€€Ô#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀOR#ÔA€negligent€act€or€omission€is€the€proximate€cause€of€an€injury€if€the€injuryÐ h¸ Ðis€a€natural€and€probable€consequence€which,€in€light€of€the€circumstances,€shouldÏreasonably€have€been€foreseen€or€anticipated.€œ€òòCity€of€Portage€v.€Lindbloomóó,€655€N.E.2d€84,Ð X¨ Ð86€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1995),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.›Ð P  Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€Montezuma€does€not€challenge€the€finding€of€the€NTSB€that€theÏexplosion€at€the€Downs'€home€was€caused€by€the€corrosion€of€the€œservice€line›€which€wasÏenhanced€by€pressure€from€tree€roots€which€had€overgrown€the€curb€box€containing€theÏvalve.€€Instead,€œMontezuma›€œargues›€œthat›€the€Downs€presented€no€evidence€that€œits€failure€toÏinspect€the€curb€box€contributed€to€the€explosion.€€Further,€Montezuma€argues€that€the€onlyÏforeseeable€consequence€of€its€failure€to€inspect€the€service„line€valve€"would€be€that€a€leakÏin€the€valve€or€some€other€problem€with€the€valve€would€go€undetected."€€Appellant's€BriefÏâ âat€13.€€We€disagree.Ð ,`'( Ðà  àHere,€the€evidence€is€undisputed€that€the€corrosion€of€the€valve€and€the€pressure€fromÏâ âthe€tree€roots€caused€a€gas€leak,€which€seeped€through€and€pooled€beneath€the€Downs'€homeÏand,€when€ignited,€caused€the€home€to€explode.€€Had€Montezuma€inspected€the€valve€asÏrequired€by€the€Ô‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔValve€Maintenance€RegulationÔ#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀ·X#Ô,€it€would€have€discovered€the€tree€root€whichÐ ˜ è Ðeventually€engulfed€the€valve€and€removed€it,€decreasing€the€external€pressure€on€the€valveÏwhich€contributed€to€the€leak€and€subsequent€explosion.€€Montezuma's€argument€that€theÏonly€foreseeable€consequence€of€not€inspecting€the€valve€was€that€a€leak€would€goÏundetected€ignores€the€fact€that€the€inspection€requirements€are€designed€to€prevent€leaks,Ïnot€to€remedy€them€once€they€occur.€€Given€the€highly€explosive€nature€of€natural€gas,ÏMontezuma€should€have€foreseen€that€its€failure€to€inspect€the€valves€and,€therefore,€toÏprevent›€potential€œleaks,›€could€result€in€an€explosion.€€As€a€result,€we€affirm€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€that€Montezuma's€failure€to€inspect€the€Downs'€service„line€valve€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€Downs'€injuries.ÌÓ  ÓòòB.€€Exposed€Pipeline€Regulationóóœñ“ñ׃-×ñ“ññ“ñ׃@×ñ“ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כРH˜ ÐÓM\Óà  àNext,€Montezuma€challenges€the€trial€court's€determination€that€it€was€negligent€perÏse€for€violating€the€Exposed€Pipeline€Regulation,€49€CFR€ðð€192.459,€which€Ô‡ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÔprovides:Ð 8"ˆ ÐÓÓà8  àWhenever€an€operator€has€knowledge€that€any€portion€of€a€buried€pipeline€isÏexposed,€the€exposed€portion€must€be€examined€for€evidence€of€externalÏcorrosion€if€the€pipe€is€bare,€or€if€the€coating€is€deteriorated.€€If€externalÐ (&x!" Ðcorrosion€is€found,€remedial€action€must€be€taken€to€the€extent€required€by€ððÏ192.483€and€the€applicable€paragraphs€of€ðððð€192.485,€192.487,€or€192.489.ÓÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀÌ]#ÔIn€the€instant€case,€the€evidence€is€undisputed€that€the€Downs'€service€line€was€exposed€inÐ ¤ô Ðlate€1991€or€early€1992€when€Black's€Pipeline€replaced€the€gas€main€under€Jefferson€street,Ïin€front€of€the€Downs'€home,€with€a€polyethylene€pipeline.€€The€only€issue,€then,€is€whetherÏMontezuma€inspected€the€Downs'€service€line€at€that€time.Ìà  àIn€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€this€issue,€the€Downs€designatedÏthe€deposition€of€Rick€Nichols,€the€superintendent€for€Montezuma€Utilities,€who€MontezumaÏhad€designated€as€its€representative.€€In€his€deposition,€Nichols€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà  àQ:€à8 ` àGoing€back€to,€in€1992,€when€the€service€pipes€would€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðexposed€as€part€of€the€installation€of€the€four„inch€pipe,€did€„€„€were€theÏservice€pipes€at€that€time€inspected€for€corrosion?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àA:à ` àI€did€not€inspect€them.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àQ:à ` àDo€you€know€if€they€were€inspected€by€the€town?Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àA:à ` àNo,€I€did€not.Ð Lœ ÐÌà  à.€.€.€ÌÌà  àQ:à8 ` àDid€the€town€have€as€a€goal€inspection€of€those€service€lines€during€theÐ  ÐÌñ˜ññ™ññ˜ñÑ'OYÑÑ ° ÑÑ  Ññ˜ññ™ññ˜ñßA€$) °°xdE°•xAßÐ – ÐÌà@Ø Ø ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€œPARKE›€CIRCUIT€COURT€ˆÌà@  ìàThe€Honorable€Thomas€K.€œMilligan›,€Special€JudgeˆÌà@ìàCause€No.€œ61C01›„9403„CP„81ˆÌÌßA€$) °°xdE°@ xAßÐ A Á ÐÌÌœò òÔ#†ŠÀ ŠXXµyÀ¯#Ôñ˜ññ™ññ˜ñÔ‡ŠÆ.ŠXX¢Ôñ˜ññ™ññ˜ñKIRSCH,›€Judge,€òò€concurring€and€dissentingÐ ("¨ ÐÌÓÓà  àó óóóI€fully€concur€in€the€majority's€resolution€of€all€issues€in€the€appeal€brought€by€theÐ $$¤! ÐTown€of€Montezuma€and€the€Montezuma€Municipal€Gas€Utility.€€From€their€denial€of€theÏDowns'€cross„appeal,€however,€I€respectfully€dissent.Ìà  àThe€majority€follows€òòIn€re€Train€Collision€at€Gary,€Ind.€on€Jan.€19,€1993óó,€654€N.E.2dÐ  *Œ"' Ð1137€(Ind.€Ct.€œApp›.€1995),€in€which€a€panel€of€this€court€held€that€a€governmental€entity'sÏñ˜ññ™ññ˜ñÑOYÑѰ€ÑÑ  Ññ˜ññ™ññ˜ñprocurement€of€liability€insurance€coverage€€in€excess€of€the€liability€limitation€in€the€IndianaÐ ü-|&+ ÐÑ'OYÑѰ€ÑÑ  Ññ˜ññšññ˜ñÑ'OYÑѰ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ'OYÑѰ€ÑÑ  Ññ˜ññšññ˜ñTort€Claims€Act€(ITCA)€did€not€constitute€a€waiver€of€the€limitation.€€The€òòIn€re€TrainÐ ° ÐCollisionóó€case€was€based€upon€the€conclusion€that€there€was€no€showing€"that€the€LegislatureÐ ¨ø Ðintended€for€such€purchases€to€provide€a€waiver€of€the€liability€limitations."€€òòIdóó.€at€1149.€Ð  ð ÐITCA,€however,€contains€no€indication€of€legislative€intent€on€the€issue.€€ITCA€did€notÏrestrict€the€ability€of€governmental€entities€to€purchase€liability€insurance.€€Such€entities€areÏfree€to€purchase€coverage€in€excess€of€the€limitation€on€their€liability.€€When€they€do€so,€Ïthey€must€do€so€with€the€intent€that€the€insurance€which€they€procure€and€pay€for€will€beÏavailable€to€compensate€those€who€are€injured€as€the€result€of€governmental€torts.Ìà  àNone€of€the€purposes€of€the€limitation€of€liability€provision€of€ITCA€which€are€set€outÏin€the€majority€opinion€will€be€thwarted€by€this€construction.€€The€financial€integrity€ofÏgovernmental€bodies€will€not€be€threatened;€public€treasuries€will€be€preserved;€unusuallyÏlarge€recoveries€will€not€be€common€place;€excessive€litigation€will€not€be€encouraged.€ÏRather,€all€that€will€happen€is€that€an€insurance€carrier€will€be€held€liable€for€the€coverageÏit€agreed€to€provide.€€€€€Ìà  àThe€Downs'€family€sustained€a€devastating€loss.€€The€Town€of€Montezuma€insuredÏagainst€that€loss€by€procuring€liability€insurance€coverage€in€excess€of€the€limitation€of€theÏIndiana€Tort€Claims€Act.€€The€liability€insurance€carrier€bargained€for€and€receivedÏpremiums€for€the€full€amount€of€the€coverage€provided.€€This€court€is€faced€with€the€choiceÏbetween€under€compensating€the€Downs€for€their€terrible€loss€or€unjustly€enriching€theÏliability€carrier€which€bargained€for€and€received€a€premium€for€the€excess€coverage.€€TheÏâ âchoice€is€clear.€€Failing€to€hold€an€insurance€company€liable€for€the€coverage€which€it€freelyÐ ,`'( Ðagreed€to€provide€and€for€which€it€was€fully€compensated€is€neither€good€law€nor€goodÏpolicy.Ìâ âœÔ#†ŠÀ Š ŠŠÀ ¯#Ôñ˜ññšññ˜ñÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ˜ññšñ›