Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3 (2026)

Demand in excess of policy limits; procedure

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

     Sec. 3. If a health care provider or its insurer has agreed to settle its liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits established in IC 34-18-14-3(b) and IC 34-18-14-3(d), and the claimant is demanding an amount in excess of that amount, the following procedure must be followed:

(1) A petition shall be filed by the claimant in the court named in the proposed complaint, or in the circuit or superior court of Marion County, at the claimant's election, seeking:

(A) approval of an agreed settlement, if any; or

(B) demanding payment of damages from the patient's compensation fund.

(2) A copy of the petition with summons shall be served on the commissioner, the health care provider, and the health care provider's insurer, and must contain sufficient information to inform the other parties about the nature of the claim and the additional amount demanded.

(3) The commissioner and either the health care provider or the insurer of the health care provider may agree to a settlement with the claimant from the patient's compensation fund, or the commissioner, the health care provider, or the insurer of the health care provider may file written objections to the payment of the amount demanded. The agreement or objections to the payment demanded shall be filed within twenty (20) days after service of summons with copy of the petition attached to the summons.

(4) The judge of the court in which the petition is filed shall set the petition for approval or, if objections have been filed, for hearing, as soon as practicable. The court shall give notice of the hearing to the claimant, the health care provider, the insurer of the health care provider, and the commissioner.

(5) At the hearing, the commissioner, the claimant, the health care provider, and the insurer of the health care provider may introduce relevant evidence to enable the court to determine whether or not the petition should be approved if the evidence is submitted on agreement without objections. If the commissioner, the health care provider, the insurer of the health care provider, and the claimant cannot agree on the amount, if any, to be paid out of the patient's compensation fund, the court shall, after hearing any relevant evidence on the issue of claimant's damage submitted by any of the parties described in this section, determine the amount of claimant's damages, if any, in excess of the health care provider's policy limits established in IC 34-18-14-3(b) and IC 34-18-14-3(d) already paid by the insurer of the health care provider. The court shall determine the amount for which the fund is liable and make a finding and judgment accordingly. In approving a settlement or determining the amount, if any, to be paid from the patient's compensation fund, the court shall consider the liability of the health care provider as admitted and established.

(6) A settlement approved by the court may not be appealed. A judgment of the court fixing damages recoverable in a contested proceeding is appealable pursuant to the rules governing appeals in any other civil case tried by the court.

(7) A release executed between the parties does not bar access to the patient's compensation fund unless the release specifically provides otherwise.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 27-12-15-3.]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.13. Amended by P.L.233-1999, SEC.15; P.L.182-2016, SEC.11.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Robertson v. B.O. ex rel. Ort, 977 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 2012).
Robertson v. B.O. ex rel. Ort, 977 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 26× “See Ind.Code § 34-18-15-3 (2008). B.O.’s parents then filed a petition for excess damages, after which the PCF disclosed five expert witnesses prepared to testify that B.”
Atterholt v. Robinson, 872 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “The parties reached a settlement in May *637 2006 (the settlement agreement), which provided that North Woods would pay the Estate $250,000 and that the Estate would have “the right to pursue the collection of damages in excess [of $250,000] from [the Fund] pursuant to I.C. §…”
Atterholt v. Herbst, 879 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 16× “Indiana Code section 34-18-15-3 (1999) controls in situations where a health care provider or its insurer agree to settle the provider’s liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits and the claimant is demanding an amount in excess of this amount.”
Robertson v. B.O. Ex Rel. Ort, 949 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “O. did not incur the damages or that the damages were not caused by the conduct of the healthcare provider.”
John Green v. Stephen Robertson, Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Ins., 56 N.E.3d 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Recovery-of excess damages from the PCF is allowed only after the health care provider has paid the first $250,000,00, Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3 , or agreed to a settlement in which the present payment of money and the - cost of future payments exceeds $187,000.”
Atterholt v. Herbst, 902 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 34-18-15-3(4)-(5). In determining this amount, "the court shall consider the liability of the health care provider as admitted and established.”
Indiana Dep't of Ins. v. Everhart, 960 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 34-18-15-3(5) (2008). Nevertheless, in Herbst , we held that evidence of a patient’s preexisting risk of harm was still admissible for the purpose of determining the amount of excess damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.”
Mary & Ronald McDaniel, Individually & as Administrators of the Est. of Christopher L. McDaniel v. Stephen W. Robertson, Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Ins. (mem. dec.), 83 N.E.3d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “In support of their claim, the McDaniels rely on Indiana Code Section 34-18-15-3(5), which provides: If a health care provider or its insurer has agreed to settle its liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits established in IC 34-18-14-3(b) and IC 34-18-14-3(d), and…”
McCabe v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Ins. as Adm'r of the Indiana Patients Comp. Fund, 930 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “; see also I.C. § 34-18-15-3(4)-(5). [2] The issue presented in Butler was whether, under the AWDS, the amount recoverable for reasonable medical and hospital expenses necessitated by the alleged wrongful conduct is the total of the charges billed or the total amount ultimately…”
McCarty v. Sanders, 805 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The Sanders filed their petition for excess damages from the Fund under Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3 . In their petition, the Sanders alleged that their agreement to settle with the health care provider for the statutory equivalent of $100,000.”
Infectious Disease of Indianapolis, P.S.C. v. Toney, 771 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Code § 27-12-1583 (repealed and recodified at Ind.Code § 34-18-15-3); Rimert v. Mortell, 680 N.”
Infectious Disease of Indianapolis, PSC v. Toney, 813 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “The statute, as amended, is currently found at Indiana Code § 34-18-15-3. 3 . Dr. Webb withdrew his first motion for summary judgment filed after the medical review panel issued its report.”
Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3(1): 2 cases
Indiana Dep't of Ins. v. Jane Doe (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3(3): 1 case
M.O. v. Indiana Dept. of Ins., Indiana Patient's Comp. Fund, 968 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3(4): 4 cases
McCabe v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Ins. as Adm'r of the Indiana Patients Comp. Fund, 930 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “; see also I.C. § 34-18-15-3(4)-(5). [2] The issue presented in Butler was whether, under the AWDS, the amount recoverable for reasonable medical and hospital expenses necessitated by the alleged wrongful conduct is the total of the charges billed or the total amount ultimately…”
Atterholt v. Herbst, 902 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 2009). “§ 34-18-15-3(4)-(5). In determining this amount, "the court shall consider the liability of the health care provider as admitted and established.”
Cutter v. Herbst, 945 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Indiana Patient's Comp. Fund v. Patrick, 906 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3(5): 13 cases
Robertson v. B.O. ex rel. Ort, 977 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 2012). “See Ind.Code § 34-18-15-3 (2008). B.O.’s parents then filed a petition for excess damages, after which the PCF disclosed five expert witnesses prepared to testify that B.”
Atterholt v. Herbst, 879 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Indiana Code section 34-18-15-3 (1999) controls in situations where a health care provider or its insurer agree to settle the provider’s liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits and the claimant is demanding an amount in excess of this amount.”
Indiana Dep't of Ins. v. Everhart, 960 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. 2012). “Ind.Code § 34-18-15-3(5) (2008). Nevertheless, in Herbst , we held that evidence of a patient’s preexisting risk of harm was still admissible for the purpose of determining the amount of excess damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.”
Mary & Ronald McDaniel, Individually & as Administrators of the Est. of Christopher L. McDaniel v. Stephen W. Robertson, Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Ins. (mem. dec.), 83 N.E.3d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “In support of their claim, the McDaniels rely on Indiana Code Section 34-18-15-3(5), which provides: If a health care provider or its insurer has agreed to settle its liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits established in IC 34-18-14-3(b) and IC 34-18-14-3(d), and…”
John Green v. Stephen Robertson, Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Ins., 56 N.E.3d 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Recovery-of excess damages from the PCF is allowed only after the health care provider has paid the first $250,000,00, Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3 , or agreed to a settlement in which the present payment of money and the - cost of future payments exceeds $187,000.”
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.