Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 13-23-9-2 (2026)

ELTF claims must comply with rules; explanation of reasons for denial; state comptroller payment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. (a) ELTF claims must be submitted in accordance with rules adopted by the financial assurance board under IC 13-23-11-7(a)(1)(B).

     (b) If the administrator denies an ELTF claim, the administrator shall provide the claimant with a written explanation of all reasons for the denial of reimbursement.

     (c) The administrator shall forward a copy of a claim approved under this section to the state comptroller not more than seven (7) days after approving the claim.

     (d) Not more than thirty (30) days after receiving a copy of an approved ELTF claim under subsection (c), the state comptroller shall pay the ELTF claim to the claimant from the ELTF.

[Pre-1996 Recodification Citations: 13-7-20-37; 13-7-20-39(a).]

As added by P.L.1-1996, SEC.13. Amended by P.L.9-1996, SEC.22; P.L.14-2001, SEC.15; P.L.96-2016, SEC.34; P.L.9-2024, SEC.345.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2016 · leading case: Kiel Bros. Oil Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 819 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Kiel Bros. Oil Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 819 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Ind.Code §§ 13-23-9-2, 13-28-8-1(1). By contrast, to receive money from the ELTF for payment of part of the liability of UST owners and operators to third parties, or for reasonable attorney fees incurred in the defense of a third party liability claim, a claimant must "submit…”
Dennistarr Env't, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Env't Mgmt., 741 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “See Ind. Code § 13-23-9-2 , formerly Ind. Code § 13-7-20-30 .”
Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer, 684 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 13-23-9-2(b). Moreover, “[a] corrective action undertaken or required under this chapter may include an exposure assessment.”
Esserman v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 66 N.E.3d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “On many occasions, Esserman found that applicants had not properly documented their claims[ ] and therefore the claims were not “reasonable and cost effected [sic],” as required for ELTF funds under IC § 13-23-9-2 and its implementing regulations.”
Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “On many occasions, Esserman found that applicants had not properly documented their claims[] and therefore the claims were not “reasonable and cost effected [sic],” as required for ELTF funds under IC § 13-23-9-2 and its implementing regulations.”
— Ind. Code § 13-23-9-2(b) — 1 case
Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer, 684 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “See Ind.Code § 13-23-9-2(b). Moreover, “[a] corrective action undertaken or required under this chapter may include an exposure assessment.”
— Ind. Code § 13-23-9-2(g) — 1 case
Kiel Bros. Oil Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 819 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code §§ 13-23-9-2, 13-28-8-1(1). By contrast, to receive money from the ELTF for payment of part of the liability of UST owners and operators to third parties, or for reasonable attorney fees incurred in the defense of a third party liability claim, a claimant must "submit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.