State Snapshot
BASIC RULE
Workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for injuries that arise out of employment and occur in the course of employment. Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6.
This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where he or she might obtain money damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his or her injury. The rule generally applies to surviving dependents attempting to bring a wrongful death case against the employer.
Indiana generally extends the rule to protect co-employees acting within scope of employment.
INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION
If an employer intentionally causes the injury, the exclusive remedy rule does not apply. To meet this exception, the employee must show that the employer had deliberate intent to inflict an injury. It’s not enough to show that the employer was grossly negligent or that it acted with reckless disregard to safety.
“THIRD PARTY” LAWSUITS
Employees can still sue third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, contractors) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury.
EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE
If the employer failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may sue the employer in tort.
DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION
This exception involves the rare situation where the employer has a second legal relationship with the employee that is independent of the employment relationship. An example is a product manufactured whose defective product injures the employee.
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE
The exclusivity rule does not prevent an employee from suing for wrongful termination. If an employer fires an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, the employee can sue for retaliatory discharge.
RECENT CASES
Estate of Hopkins v. Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-157 (N.D. Ind. 03/24/24)
A steel-plant worker suffered a severe brain hemorrhage while in the employee break room. Company paramedics treated him on-site and transported him to a local hospital. Despite further treatment, he died. His estate filed a wrongful death claim against the employer, alleging gross negligence. The court dismissed the case based on the exclusive remedy provision. First, it found that the injury occurred in the course of employment because breaks taken in a company break room are considered incidental to employment. Next, it found that the injury arose out of employment because in-plant medical services provided by an employer are legally tied to the employment relationship. Thus, the court concluded, the estate was restricted to seeking worker’s compensation benefits.
Summers v. Crossroads Galvanizing, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00478-TC-DBP (N.D. Ind. 10/27/23)
An employee was killed when a crane hook with a safety latch dropped a 570-pound load and crushed him. IOSHA investigated and found multiple safety violations and a “knowing” violation for operating the crane with a bypassed safety latch. The decedent’s son sued for wrongful death. He claimed that safety latches were routinely removed or disabled and that employees had warned management that someone would be killed. He alleged that the employer was grossly negligent and deliberately disregarded worker safety. The court dismissed the case, reasoning that the son failed to make out a plausible claim that the employer acted with deliberate intent to injure or actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. Even conduct making injury “reasonably predictable” or “substantially certain” does not meet Indiana’s high legal standard for showing deliberate intent to harm, the court said.
Beckner v. Maxim Crane Works, LP, No. 1:21-cv-01395-SEB-TAB. (S.D. Ind. 09/07/23)
An employee of Commercial Air, Inc., a mechanical contractor, was working on the construction of a residential home. Commercial Air hired Maxim Crane Works to provide a crane and an operator, Emmitt Pugh, to lift roof trusses. One or more trusses struck the employee, permanently injuring him. The employee sued Maxim for negligence, arguing that Mr. Pugh operated the crane too quickly and “smacked” trusses during the lift, weakening the structure. Maxim argued that under Indiana law, Mr. Pugh was a “borrowed servant” (a dual employee), making him a co-employee of the injured employee, meaning that the exclusivity provision barred the lawsuit. The court agreed that, based on the control that Commercial Air exercised over Pugh, that individual was a co-employee of the injured worker at the time of the accident. Thus, the injured employee’s only remedy was workers’ compensation.
EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEIGHBORING STATES
Illinois
Ohio
