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 stated in the statute; generally treated as simple interest.

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

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

The Indiana General Assembly's statute site renders through JavaScript, so the section text could not be pulled directly. Confirm there has been no recent amendment before relying on the rate.

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

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.

Indiana has no statute defining an ACV computation formula. In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong the Indiana Supreme Court adopted the broad evidence rule, under which the fact-finder may consider every fact and circumstance that logically tends to a correct estimate of the loss, including original cost, cost of reproduction, market value and expert opinion, rather than one fixed formula.

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

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

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Indiana statute sets a holdback release deadline. On labor depreciation Indiana has no rule either way, because its leading case treats depreciation as one undifferentiated figure.

No Indiana statute or regulation governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong adopted the broad evidence rule for actual cash value and held that while an insurer is entitled to have depreciation considered, it is not entitled to have its liability determined by the exclusive use of replacement cost less depreciation. The opinion treats depreciation as a single figure and never separates labor from materials, so Indiana has no authority on the labor question in either direction. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.

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

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

“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/

Luse Thermal is a 2023 Court of Appeals decision. It reaches the opposite result from Massachusetts on a similar question: costs from accelerating work to cover another trade's delay were still barred as delay damages rather than treated 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. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

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).

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

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/

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred above 50% fault (51% bar)

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is more than 50% at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault still recovers half. Pure contributory negligence still applies to tort claims against governmental entities or public employees. I.C. § 34-51-2-2.

Citation: Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6 (bar); § 34-51-2-8 (jury assessment, nonparties); § 34-51-2-2 (governmental entities and public employees EXCEPTED); § 34-51-2-1(b) (medical malpractice excepted); § 34-13-3 (Tort Claims Act, notice and cap)

Source: https://iga.in.gov/ic/2023/Title_34/Article_51/Chapter_2.pdf

Verified against: statute text of Ind. Code ss 34-51-2-1, 34-51-2-2, 34-51-2-6 and 34-51-2-8 from the Indiana General Assembly's own publication of chapter 34-51-2 and the Court of Appeals' statement of the consequence in Coff v. Quiroga (Ind. Ct. App. 19 Nov. 2025), citing St. John Town Bd. v. Lambert, 725 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)

Non-economic damages cap

No general cap on non-economic damages

Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.

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. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. It also covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

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

Evidence of negligence in Indiana, not negligence per se

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.

Indiana's statutory employer test is not spelled out in the sources behind this entry. Third-party claims otherwise turn on premises liability, retained control, negligent undertaking, product defect and vehicle theories.

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under Ind. Code §§ 22-3-1 et seq., which may also protect statutory employers and certain co-employees

Ind. Code §§ 22-3-1 et seq. make compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer and may protect statutory employers and certain co-employees. Stump v. Commercial Union addresses whether an employee can sue the employer's workers' compensation carrier for its own tortious conduct, which is a narrower question than general employer immunity. Confirm the piercing exceptions directly before relying on them. In practice exclusivity takes the direct employer off the tort table entirely, whatever the OSHA file shows. The claim runs against the other parties on the site: the general contractor, the owner, another subcontractor, an equipment manufacturer. The employer or its carrier then asserts a lien against whatever the worker recovers from those parties, so the figure the worker actually keeps is the recovery less the lien, the fee and the costs. Whether the lien is reduced for the cost of obtaining the recovery is a separate state question worth asking early, because it moves the net more than most people expect.

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

Distinctive state doctrine

Leased and staffing employees fall under the client company's exclusivity too. The 1911 Employer Liability chapter is a pre-Act relic rather than a live alternate route.

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 holding under IC 22-3-6-1(a) is confirmed. The conclusion about Chapter 9 rests on the chapter's own 1911 savings clause, its archaic damages cap and its absence from modern practitioner summaries, rather than a case squarely holding it superseded.