Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s conversion and deception actions, which alleged that defendant had refused to return reusable shipping materials involved in shipment of defendant’s eggs to plaintiff. Record showed that: (1) defendant had prevailed against plaintiff in prior breach of contract action, in which contract called for plaintiff to provide said shipment materials to defendant, but made no mention of defendant returning said material to plaintiff; and (2) prior to filing prior contract action, plaintiff had formally demanded return of said materials and made second demand for said materials one day after filing contract action. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that: (1) plaintiff was aware at time of filing of contract action that ownership of shipping materials was part of its contract dispute with defendant; and (2) instant tort action arose out of same transaction at issue in prior contract action, such that claim-splitting ban under Indiana law precluded plaintiff from filing instant action.
