All States › Indiana › Paul Felix › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion Jun 08, 2026

The Morel Company, LLC v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC

── The Morel Company, LLC v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: May 29, 2026 Author: Robert Altice Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED The Morel Company, LLC, May 29 2026, 10:34 am Appellant-Plaintiff CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC, Appellee-Defendant May 29, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-937 Interlocutory Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court The Honorable Jeffrey Sharp, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-2305-PL-000005 Opinion by Judge Felix Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-937 | May 29, 2026 Page 1 of 28 Judge Altice concurs. Chief Judge Tavitas dissents with a separate opinion. Felix, Judge. Statement of the Case [1] In 2015, The Morel Company, LLC (“Morel”) and Sizewise Rentals, LLC (“Sizewise”) entered into a five-year distribution agreement whereby Morel would design and manufacture a medical device for hospital bedframes. Sizewise would purchase the devices at a discounted price, rent them to healthcare facilities, and pay Morel a “Rental Rate Share.” Five years later, Sizewise communicated its intention to let the agreement expire before it renewed or extended. The parties disputed whether the agreement permitted Sizewise to do so or instead extended automatically. The trial court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, prompting this interlocutory appeal. The parties raise two issues, which we restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court erred by denying their respective motions for summary judgment. [2] We reverse. Facts and Procedural History [3] Morel is a medical device manufacturer whose principal product is an “automated patient repositioning device,” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 96, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-937 | May 29, 2026 Page 2 of 28 known as the “Hercules Patient Repositioner” (the “Hercules”), Appellant’s App. Vol. VI at 127. The Hercules attaches to hospital bedframes and enables caregivers “to push a button to pull a patient up in bed.” App. Vol. III at 112. [4] Relevant for this appeal, Sizewise is a distributor of specialty medical equipment. Sizewise specializes in the “bariatric” market, Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 10, which consists of medical devices tailored to obese patients. One line of Sizewise’s business was the sale and rental of “bariatric bedframes,” id., which are several inches wider than standard 36-inch hospital bedframes. Sizewise charged customers (e.g., hospitals, care centers, etc.) a daily rental rate for use of the bedframes. [5] In 2014, Sizewise representatives discovered the Hercules at a trade show and became interested in adding it to Sizewise’s portfolio of products. At the time, the Hercules was only designed to fit standard hospital bedframes. Sizewise was interested in working with Morel to distribute the Herc
CourtListener · May 29, 2026
Original link
Paul Felix Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Robert Altice Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth Tavitas Indiana Court of Appeals Judge
Share on X Share on Facebook
← Back to Paul Felix's profile
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}