Ind. Code » Title 27
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 27-8-5-10 (2026)

Repealed

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

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.15, s.169.10; Acts 1969, c.266, s.2; Acts 1971, P.L.393, SEC.1; Acts 1974, P.L.125, SEC.1. Repealed by P.L.257-1985, SEC.6.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1977–1977 · leading case: Wayne Chem., Inc., Robert C. Tribolet & Thomas C. Tribolet v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 567 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wayne Chem., Inc., Robert C. Tribolet & Thomas C. Tribolet v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 567 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “A protest by counsel retained by the Tribolets that the termination-of-coverage provision of the CASCO-NMEF insurance was in conflict with Ind.Code § 27-8-5-10(B)(4) was rejected by NMEF’s attorney on the ground that ERISA preempted that state statute.”
Wayne Chem., Inc. v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 426 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Ind. 1977). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, they invoke Ind. Code § 27-8-5-10 (B)(4) (Burns 1975), which provides that group health insurance coverage of a dependent of an employee may not terminate on attainment of a limiting age where the dependent, at the time he reaches the limiting age, is disabled.”
— Ind. Code § 27-8-5-10(B)(4) — 2 cases
Wayne Chem., Inc., Robert C. Tribolet & Thomas C. Tribolet v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 567 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1977). “A protest by counsel retained by the Tribolets that the termination-of-coverage provision of the CASCO-NMEF insurance was in conflict with Ind.Code § 27-8-5-10(B)(4) was rejected by NMEF’s attorney on the ground that ERISA preempted that state statute.”
Wayne Chem., Inc. v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 426 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Ind. 1977). “Furthermore, they invoke Ind. Code § 27-8-5-10 (B)(4) (Burns 1975), which provides that group health insurance coverage of a dependent of an employee may not terminate on attainment of a limiting age where the dependent, at the time he reaches the limiting age, is disabled.”
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.