T.R. 54(B) and T.R. 56(C) have similar language and allow trial courts to issue interlocutory orders with respect to less than all of the issues, claims, or parties. - Additionally, both rules allow trial courts to certify interlocutory orders as final, appealable orders if the trial court in writing expressly determines there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Radbel by Radbel v. Midwestern Elec., Inc., 550 N.E.2d 340, 341 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). However, to be a final judgment under TR. 54(B) and T.R. 56(C), a judgment must possess the requisite degree of finality and must dispose of at least a single substantive claim. Legg v. O'Connor, 557 N.E.2d 675, 676 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). See Ramco Indus., Inc. v. C & E Corp., 773 N.E.2d 284, 288 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the parties' arguments or the
holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment holding the trial court improperly certified under tr 56c its order granting partial summary judgment as a final appealable order because the order did not possess the required degree of finality