Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of Compulsive Gambler’s Lawsuit
In a no-nonsense opinion issued May 20, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a compulsive gambler’s negligence claim against Harrah’s Indiana Corporation. (See Stulajter v. Harrah's Indiana Corp., 808 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)). Rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that alleged regulatory violations gave rise to a private cause of action against Harrah’s, the appeals court concluded that “Indiana’s gaming statutes and regulations do not create a private cause of action to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves.”
Milan Stulajter claimed he lost $800,000 at several casinos before he asked Harrah’s to place him on the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) voluntary self-exclusion list. After he self-excluded, Stulajter claimed that he received Harrah’s marketing materials promising him “a free $200” if he returned to gamble. Stulajter said he then visited a Harrah’s casino and lost an additional $70,000.
Stulajter charged that the casino violated Indiana's self-exclusion policy, which, at the time, was administered by individual casinos, not by the state. He asserted that Harrah's acted negligently in sending him marketing materials and in failing to exclude or evict him from the casino premises. Stulajter sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
In the trial court, Harrah’s moved to dismiss the suit on numerous grounds, including its claim that the casino had no duty to exclude Stulajter or to protect him from having gambling losses. Even if a legal duty had applied, Harrah’s contended that Stulajter waived his right to sue when he signed the self-exclusion waiver and release. Consequently, the trial court dismissed Stulajter’s complaint without giving reasons for its action.
Stulajter then asked the appellate court to recognize a private cause of action against Harrah’s based on the theory that individuals (as opposed to the general public) are harmed when Indiana's self-exclusion statutes and regulations are violated. The court specifically rejected that theory, noting that the state legislature gave the IGC full authority to develop and enforce appropriate regulations for most aspects of gaming in that state, including self-exclusion programs. Therefore, the court reasoned “if Harrah’s is in violation of any of the stated statutory provisions, it must answer to the commission, not a private citizen claiming harm from the alleged violation.”
The Stulajter ruling is the first decision by a state appellate court to reject compulsive gambling liability for a casino's alleged failure to enforce a self-exclusion request. Accordingly, it may not only resolve Indiana law on that issue but also may serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions.
