Construction Claim Rules in Indiana

Statutory interest rate

8% / year (or the contract rate, capped at 8%)

Statutory legal rate on money judgments; Indiana courts apply this same rate as prejudgment interest on contract/construction claims once damages are ascertainable, under common law. A separate 6%–10% discretionary statute (IC 34-51-4) applies only to tort claims; do not use it for construction/contract disputes.

Compounding: Not independently confirmed; generally understood to be simple

Citation: Ind. Code §§ 24-4.6-1-101, 24-4.6-1-102

Source: https://iga.in.gov/laws/current/ic/titles/24/

The official IGA statute site is JavaScript-rendered and wasn't directly fetchable; citation was corroborated via 3 independent secondary sources but not the primary .gov page. Manually confirm no recent amendment before relying on it.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the amount is ascertainable by a simple calculation and the sum was demanded or due

Indiana case law allows prejudgment interest on a contract claim when the amount rests on a simple calculation the contract terms make ascertainable, so the fact-finder doesn't have to exercise judgment to assess damages. When that test is met, interest runs from the time the principal amount was demanded or due, in practice the default or breach date.

Citation: Song v. Iatarola, 130 N.E.3d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019); Fackler v. Powell, 891 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2019/18a-pl-2134.html

This is common-law, not the statutory IC 34-51-4 scheme in the property/tort entry below; that chapter applies only to tort actions, not contract claims.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Not date of loss: a statutory formula tied to the filing date, with a mandatory delay

Indiana's tort-specific prejudgment interest statute (IC 34-51-4) sets the accrual date as the latest of three points: 15 months after the cause of action accrued, 6 months after the claim was filed in court, or (in medical claims) 180 days after a review panel is formed, capped at a maximum 48-month accrual period. This is a formula, not a simple date-of-loss rule; it also builds in a mandatory delay before interest starts.

Citation: Ind. Code § 34-51-4-8

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-34/article-51/chapter-4/section-34-51-4-8/

This mechanism only applies to tort actions under IC 34-51-4; confirm your property-damage claim actually falls within this chapter's scope before assuming this formula applies.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Applies even when the policy requires 'deduction for depreciation'; that language alone doesn't limit ACV to a strict replacement-cost-minus-depreciation formula.

Citation: Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1982); Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2018)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1982/1282s468-2.html

Link added in a follow-up verification pass; Travelers Indem. v. Armstrong (the Indiana Supreme Court case linked above) is the leading state-court authority; Thorne is a federal Seventh Circuit case applying Indiana law.

ACV statute or regulation

No Indiana statute defines the ACV computation formula. Indiana uses the Broad Evidence Rule via case law.

Multiple independent industry surveys confirm Indiana has no ACV-computation statute; valuation for property-insurance claims is governed by the Broad Evidence Rule at common law, considering all relevant evidence of value rather than a fixed formula.

Source: https://www.theartofadjusting.com/acv-determination

RESEARCHED and confirmed via multiple independent industry surveys (Woods Aitken/Carr Maloney/Art of Adjusting) that this state has no specific statute defining the ACV computation formula -- valuation is governed by case law (the Broad Evidence Rule) rather than a fixed statutory formula.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Indiana statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, the Indiana Supreme Court has authorized an across-the-board depreciation deduction that can include labor.

No Indiana statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, the Indiana Supreme Court in Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong reversed a lower court and authorized an 'across-the-board' depreciation deduction, meaning Indiana permits depreciating labor as part of ACV.

Citation: Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349, 365 (Ind. 1982).

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation holding is from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary opinion in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, including against a subcontractor's acceleration claim absent an executed change order

The Indiana Court of Appeals enforced a no-damages-for-delay clause to bar a subcontractor from recovering costs incurred when it accelerated its own work schedule to make up for delays caused by other trades, reasoning that acceleration is most often simply the result of delay and so falls within the clause's scope. The court emphasized that the subcontractor could have preserved a right to recover by obtaining an executed change order before proceeding with the modified scope of work, but did not do so.

Citation: Luse Thermal Techs., Inc. v. Graycor Indus. Contractors, Inc., 221 N.E.3d 701 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)

Source: https://lgwmlaw.com/indiana-court-of-appeals-holds-no-damage-for-delay-clause-barred-subcontractor-from-recovering-financial-damages/

RESEARCHED from scratch. Luse Thermal Technologies (2023) confirmed real, recent, and directly on point -- notably reaches the OPPOSITE result from Massachusetts's Central Ceilings v. Suffolk on a similar acceleration-costs question: Indiana held that costs from being forced to accelerate work to cover others' delay were still barred as 'delay damages' under the clause, rejecting the contractor's attempt to recharacterize them as separate acceleration costs.

Construction contract filing deadline

10 years for a written contract signed on or after September 1, 1982 (20 years for older contracts)

Indiana's limitations period for an action on a written contract (other than one for the payment of money) is 10 years from accrual, for contracts entered into on or after September 1, 1982; a written contract entered into before that date instead gets a 20-year period.

Citation: Ind. Code § 34-11-2-11

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-34/article-11/chapter-2/section-34-11-2-11

Confirm which version applies based on the contract's actual execution date; nearly all current construction contracts will fall under the 10-year, post-1982 rule.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Indiana's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.5% of the first $9,500 in wages per employee for most industries. Construction employers get a different formula: the lesser of 4.0% or the average rate for all Indiana construction companies. Experienced employers range from 0.50% to 7.40% in good standing (9.40% if delinquent).

Confirmed directly against in.gov: government entities pay 1.6% (unless they elect reimbursing status), and a successor employer inherits its predecessor's rate rather than starting fresh. New employer rates are set as of June 30 each year and apply for four calendar years before an employer becomes eligible for experience rating.

Citation: Indiana Department of Workforce Development (DWD).

Source: https://www.in.gov/dwd/indiana-unemployment/employers/employer-guide/rate-computation/new-employer-premium-rate

Last checked: 2026-08-26

ADDED: the construction-specific new-employer rate formula (lesser of 4.0% or the industry average), confirmed directly against in.gov, which the prior entry did not mention.

Workers' compensation rating

Indiana runs its own independent workers' compensation rating bureau rather than using NCCI directly.

Indiana is one of roughly eleven states with an independent rating bureau created by state statute, the Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau (ICRB), which develops Indiana's own loss costs, classification codes and experience-rating plans and files them with the Indiana Department of Insurance. NCCI provides some contracted data-collection and actuarial support to ICRB, and both organizations belong to the industry-wide Workers Compensation Insurance Organization (WCIO), but Indiana's rates are not simply adopted NCCI advisory rates.

Citation: Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau (ICRB)

Source: https://www.icrb.net/references/independent-bureaus-ncci-and-wcio/

Prevailing wage law

Indiana has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its Common Construction Wage Act effective July 1, 2015.

Indiana's Common Construction Wage Act, which had required a locally determined common wage scale on public construction projects, was repealed by the state legislature effective July 1, 2015. Public construction contracts let by Indiana state or local agencies are no longer subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage, only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only when federal funds are involved.

Citation: Repealed Common Construction Wage Act; Indiana Department of Labor

Source: https://www.in.gov/dol/common-construction-prevailing-wage/common-construction-wage-home/

OSHA plan

IOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector

Indiana operates IOSHA (Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration), a full OSHA-approved state plan covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Ind. Code § 22-8-1.1

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/in

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se: a direct Indiana Court of Appeals holding, reinforced by an Indiana Supreme Court case extending FELA-based reasoning to ordinary negligence claims

The Indiana Court of Appeals held directly: 'Violation of an administrative regulation can be considered evidence of negligence, though it is not evidence per se.' Separately, the Indiana Supreme Court, in a case originally decided under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, held that OSHA's savings clause (29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4)) precludes treating an OSHA violation as negligence per se; and a later Indiana Court of Appeals case extended that same rationale beyond the FELA context to ordinary common-law negligence claims, confirming the 'some evidence' classification applies generally in Indiana.

Citation: Beta Steel v. Rust, 830 N.E.2d 62, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Hebel v. Conrail, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 652, 657-58 (Ind. 1985); Blocher v. DeBartolo Properties Management, 760 N.E.2d 229, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)

Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/steel-v-rust-no-895793781

Third-party contribution against the employer

Indiana may extend protection to statutory employers and certain co-employees; non-immune third parties are reached via premises, retained control, negligent undertaking, defective products, or vehicles.

The source doesn't detail Indiana's statutory-employer qualifying test beyond confirming it exists alongside co-employee protection.

Citation: Ind. Code §§22-3-1 et seq.; GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2001/03130101-rdr.html

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under §§22-3-1 et seq., may protect statutory employers and certain co-employees: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Ind. Code §§22-3-1 et seq. generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer and may protect statutory employers and certain co-employees. The manual doesn't identify a further piercing exception; confirm directly.

Citation: Ind. Code §§22-3-1 et seq.; Stump v. Commercial Union, 601 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 1992).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1992/02s00-9203-cq-169-4.html

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke. Confirmed real (601 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 1992)), but the case addresses whether an employee can sue their employer's WORKERS COMP INSURANCE CARRIER for tortious conduct -- a narrower and different exception from general employer-immunity piercing. Related exclusivity doctrine, but not a direct match for this field's general employer-immunity-exception topic.

Distinctive state doctrine

Leased/staffing-employee exclusivity confirmed by a real 2018 appellate case. The separate 1911-era 'Employer Liability' chapter (IC 22-3-9) is a pre-modern-Act relic; its own text and the absence of any mention in standard modern exclusive-remedy summaries indicate it doesn't provide a live alternate route for an ordinary construction injury today.

In Walls v. Markley Enterprises, Inc., 18A-CT-266 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018), a worker assigned by a staffing agency was held to be a joint employee of both the staffing agency and the client company under IC 22-3-6-1(a), meaning her workers' comp claim against the staffing agency was her exclusive remedy against the client company too. This confirms Indiana's leased-employee exclusivity extension is real and directly relevant to construction sites using staffing agencies or leased labor. Separately, IC 22-3-9 (Chapter 9, 'Employer Liability') is a distinct, older statutory scheme dating to 1911, before Indiana's modern no-fault Workers' Compensation Act (IC 22-3-2 through 22-3-6) existed. Its own savings clause, IC 22-3-9-3, limits it to preserving liability 'under the common law or any other statute existing on March 2, 1911,' and it caps wrongful-death damages at a flat $10,000 under IC 22-3-9-6, an archaic figure no modern statute would set. Standard practitioner summaries of Indiana's current exclusive-remedy rule (the intentional-injury, failure-to-secure-coverage, independent-legal-relationship, and retaliatory-discharge exceptions) don't mention Chapter 9 at all. Taken together, this strongly indicates Chapter 9 is a vestigial pre-Act liability scheme rather than a live alternate route available against an employer already covered by the modern Act, which is the normal case for a construction employer.

Citation: Walls v. Markley Enterprises, Inc., 18A-CT-266 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018); IC 22-3-6-1(a); IC 22-3-9-1, 22-3-9-3, 22-3-9-6 (Employer Liability chapter).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2018/18a-ct-266.html

The Walls case and IC 22-3-6-1(a) holding remain independently confirmed. The Chapter 9 conclusion is a well-supported inference from the statute's own text (its 1911 savings clause, its archaic damages cap) and its absence from modern secondary sources, not a single case squarely holding Chapter 9 superseded for Act-covered employers; no such case was found in this pass. Treat this as a strong, sourced inference, not case-law-confirmed fact.