This week, the Indiana Supreme Court was faced with an issue of first impression: whether “value” in the Worker’s Compensation Act meant only the money paid for the work or whether it included other consideration for the work. The ambiguity was found in a portion of the Act affixing secondary liability for persons contracting for work in excess of $1,000 in value. The plaintiff–an employee of a tree removal business–argued that the act applied because the value of the wood that his employer was allowed to keep, coupled with the $600 paid for the removal, exceeded $1,000. The court agreed.
This installment is the 100th by author Colin E. Flora for the Hoosier Litigation Blog. It is also, in honor of the big one double-o mark, the first of four on the day. This post focuses on the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, holding that using workers’ compensation proceeds to calculate underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage violates Indiana UIM statute.
Indiana Court Clarifies Rights of Volunteer to Bring Claim Outside of Worker’s Compensation & Reach of Equine Activity Statute
This week we examine the issues of whether a volunteer who accepts medical benefits under a worker’s compensation policy is bound to the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act for exclusive recovery. We also examine the Indiana Equine Activity Statute and the ability to bring a negligence claim for injuries caused by a horse. The discussions are conducted through the context of this week’s Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Einhorn v. Johnson.