Indiana's Exclusive Remedy Rule Protects Employers from Lawsuits

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Indiana's workers' compensation system establishes an "exclusive remedy" rule, meaning employees injured on the job can only seek benefits through the workers' comp program and are generally barred from suing their employers in civil court. This law shields companies from costly lawsuits, but also limits the compensation available to injured workers in some cases.

Why it matters

The exclusive remedy rule is a cornerstone of Indiana's workers' compensation system, providing predictability and cost control for employers while restricting the legal options available to workers who suffer job-related injuries or illnesses. However, the high bar set for proving an "intentional" employer action that would allow a civil lawsuit has faced criticism from some worker advocates.

The details

Under Indiana law, workers' compensation is the sole legal remedy for employees who are injured or killed on the job, as long as the incident "arises out of and in the course of employment." This means workers generally cannot sue their employers in civil court, even if the employer was negligent. The exclusive remedy rule also typically extends to co-workers acting within the scope of their duties. There are some exceptions, such as if the employer intentionally caused the injury or failed to obtain workers' comp coverage. But courts have interpreted the "intentional injury" exception narrowly, requiring proof the employer had a "deliberate intent to inflict an injury" - a high legal bar.

• On March 24, 2024, a federal court in Indiana dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit against an employer, citing the exclusive remedy rule.
• On October 27, 2023, another federal court in Indiana dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit, ruling the exclusive remedy rule applied even when an employer was found to have serious safety violations.
• On September 7, 2023, a federal court in Indiana found that the exclusive remedy rule barred a lawsuit against a crane operator who was deemed a "borrowed servant" of the injured worker's employer.