Sec. 5. (a) As used in this section, "designer" means
a person who:
(1) designs, plans, supervises, or observes the construction of an
improvement to real property; or
(2) constructs an improvement to real property.
(b) As used in this section, "possessor" means a person having
ownership, possession, or control of real property at the time an alleged
deficiency in an improvement to the real property causes injury or
wrongful death.
(c) As used in this section, "deficiency" does not mean a failure by
a possessor to use reasonable care to maintain an improvement to real
property following a substantial completion of an improvement.
(d) An action to recover damages, whether based upon contract, tort,
nuisance, or another legal remedy, for:
(1) a deficiency or an alleged deficiency in the design, planning,
supervision, construction, or observation of construction of an
improvement to real property;
(2) an injury to real or personal property arising out of a
deficiency; or
(3) an injury or wrongful death of a person arising out of a
deficiency;
may not be brought against a designer or possessor unless the action is
commenced within the earlier of ten (10) years after the date of
substantial completion of the improvement or twelve (12) years after
the completion and submission of plans and specifications to the owner
if the action is for a deficiency in the design of the improvement.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-15-1-2.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.79-2005,
SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Perdue v. Greater Lafayette Health Servs., Inc., 951 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “I.C. § 32-30-1-5. And subsection (c) of the statute provides: “As used in this section, ‘deficiency’ does not mean a failure by a possessor to use reasonable care to maintain an improvement to real property following a substantial completion of an improvement.”
Russo v. S. Developers, Inc., 868 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 32-30-1-5. The Russos’ Complaint alleges that the Developers built the House "[o]n or about 1995,” Appellants’ App.”
Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 940 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “In the instant case, ESMW took advantage of local rule 714 and filed an initial motion for summary judgment in the stayed case claiming that its cause falls within the protection of CSOR, I.C. § 32-30-1-5(d), which provides (d) An action to recover damages, whether based upon…”
Pentony v. Valparaiso Dep't of Parks & Rec., 865 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Ind. 2012).
· cites it 8× “After reviewing the parties’ summary judgment submissions the Court set the motions for oral argument and gave the parties notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) that they should discuss the applicability of the statute of repose found in Indiana Code § 32-30-1-5 at…”
Pentony v. Valparaiso Dep't of Parks & Rec., 866 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Ind. 2012).
· cites it 8× “After reviewing the parties’ summary judgment submissions the Court set the motions for oral argument and gave the parties notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) that they should discuss the applicability of the statute of repose found in Indiana Code § 32-30-1-5 at…”
In Re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 837 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 2016).
“Ind. Code § 32-30-1-5 . But the Indiana Supreme Court has declined to apply this statute to every contractor that installs or removes asbestos materials, recognizing that “not everything a contractor does constitutes an improvement to real property.”
Powers & Sons Constr. Co. v. Healthy East Chicago, 919 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Indiana Code section 32-30-1-5 provides: An action to recover damages, whether based upon contract, tort, nuisance, or another legal remedy, for .”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Zayo Grp. LLC (S.D. Ind. 2024).
· cites it 6× “5/13-214; IC § 32-30-1-5"; • 4. "Zayo's installations are authorized by third parties who have superior rights to [CSX] in the locations where Zayo's installations reside, including private landowners, Zayo's customers, and other railroads"; • 6.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-1-5(c) — 1 case
Pentony v. Valparaiso Dep't of Parks & Rec., 866 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Ind. 2012).
“After reviewing the parties’ summary judgment submissions the Court set the motions for oral argument and gave the parties notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) that they should discuss the applicability of the statute of repose found in Indiana Code § 32-30-1-5 at…”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-1-5(d) — 2 cases
Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 940 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“In the instant case, ESMW took advantage of local rule 714 and filed an initial motion for summary judgment in the stayed case claiming that its cause falls within the protection of CSOR, I.C. § 32-30-1-5(d), which provides (d) An action to recover damages, whether based upon…”
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.