Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-3-2-18 (2026)
Coal mining; application of law
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 18. The provisions of IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 shall apply to the state, to all political divisions thereof, to all municipal corporations within the state, to persons, partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations engaged in mining coal, and to the employees thereof, without any right of exemption from the compensation provisions of IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6, except as provided in section 15 of this chapter.
Formerly: Acts 1929, c.172, s.18; Acts 1943, c.136, s.2. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.27; P.L.8-1993, SEC.281.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1983–2017 · leading case: Dearing v. Perry, 499 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).
Dearing v. Perry, 499 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). “Ronald Warrum attorney's fees in the amount of one-third (%s) of the settlement pursuant to their previous contract and Ind.Code § 22-3-2-18. The Posey Circuit Court held a hearing upon all of the foregoing motions.”
DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, 815 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Whether Farmer's claim for worker's compensation benefits, pursuant to Ind.Code § 22-3-2-18, is barred as a result of the settlement of his intentional tort action against co-employee, Wynn Swindel (Swindel); and 2.”
Dee Frye v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 845 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2017). “See Ind. Code § 22-3-2-18 . Frye’s injuries were also covered by two other insurance policies — a commercial automobile policy, and a commercial umbrella policy — issued by Auto-Owners to Frye’s employer.”
Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., 952 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Nevertheless, Lafarge contends that the trial court properly found that Kornelik’s failure to obtain Lafarge’s consent to the settlement as required by Indiana Code section 22-3-2-18 was an absolute bar to his request for a reduction of the lien pursuant to Indiana Code section…”
Martin v. Powell, 477 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “]" It is the definition and application of "in the same employ" which controls the resolution of this appeal.”
Turner v. Richmond Power & Light Co., 756 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind.Code § 22-3-2-18. This statute permits a worker's compensation claimant to bring a legal action against a third party tortfeasor so long as: (1) the civil action does not create a legal lability on the employer to pay damages; and (2) the third party defendant is not "in the…”
Smith v. Champion Trucking Co., Inc., 925 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 22-3-2-18 (2004) (emphasis added).”
DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, 847 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2006). “§ 22-3-2-18; Waldridge v. Futwrex Indus., Inc.”
Seiler v. Grow, 507 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “Indiana Code section 22-3-2-18; Martin v. Powell (1985), Ind.”
Northcutt v. Smith, 642 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “Indiana Code § 22-3-2-18, in pertinent part, provides: "Whenever an injury or death, for which compensation is payable under chapters 2 through 6 of this article shall have been sustained under cireumstances creating in some other person than the employer and not in the same…”
Niegos v. ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC, 940 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “While notification is required, no provision of section 22-3-7-36 specifically provides that dismissal of the ODA action is the appropriate remedy for failing to do so.”
Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Jarrells, 906 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “[[Image here]] The worker's compensation provision governing claims against third persons, Ind.Code § 22-3-2-18, provides a plaintiff the opportunity to choose between worker's compensation and third-party judgments in some situations, so that he might maximize the recovery.”
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.