Indiana Tort Claim: Notice Deadlines, Immunity, and Damage Caps

The Indiana Tort Claims Act lets you sue state and local government entities for injuries caused by their employees, but it imposes shorter deadlines, broader immunities, tighter damage caps, and a harsher fault rule than an ordinary personal injury case. Miss the notice deadline and the claim is gone. Contribute even slightly to your own injury and recovery is barred entirely. Win at trial and your damages are capped no matter how severe the harm.

Notice Deadlines Come First, and They Are Short

Before anything else, you must file a written notice of claim with the correct government office. The deadline depends on who you are suing:

Indiana courts enforce these deadlines strictly. Failure to serve timely notice bars the claim entirely, as the Indiana Supreme Court confirmed in City of Indianapolis v. Buschman.3Justia. City of Indianapolis v. Buschman

For state claims, Indiana publishes a standardized form by administrative rule, but any written statement that meets the statutory requirements works.4Legal Information Institute. 10 IAC 3-2-1 – Tort Claims Against the State; Form Each person who suffered a loss must file a separate notice.

What the Notice Must Contain

A vague letter will not satisfy the statute. Your notice needs to include:

Gather your supporting evidence early. Accident reports, medical records, repair estimates, and photographs help the government investigate and strengthen your position, even though the statute does not require every piece of evidence at the notice stage.

You Cannot Sue for 90 Days After Filing Notice

Filing notice does not open the courthouse door. The government entity has 90 days to approve or deny the claim in writing. If it does not respond within that window, the claim is treated as denied.2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 – Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees

You cannot file suit until the claim has been denied, either explicitly or by silence. A lawsuit filed before that point can be dismissed. Outright approvals are rare; most claimants receive a written denial or nothing at all, and the 90-day mark is when the path to court opens.

Immunities That Can End the Claim

Even a properly filed claim can fail because the government is immune. The ITCA lists many situations where neither the entity nor its employees can be held liable, and this is where many claims collapse.

Discretionary Function Immunity

The broadest immunity protects government decisions that involve judgment and policy. Courts will not use tort liability to second-guess planning-level choices about how to allocate resources, set priorities, or execute policy.5Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 Section 34-13-3-3 – Immunity of Governmental Entity or Employee The Indiana Supreme Court drew the line between protected planning decisions and unprotected operational acts in Peavler v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County.6Justia. Peavler v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County

A city council’s decision on how much of the budget goes to road maintenance is a discretionary policy choice and enjoys immunity. A road crew that ignores a known pothole after being assigned to fix it is performing an operational task, and immunity likely does not apply. One carve-out matters for injured patients: providing medical or optical care is always treated as non-discretionary, so government-run health facilities cannot claim this immunity.5Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 Section 34-13-3-3 – Immunity of Governmental Entity or Employee

Other Specific Immunities

The ITCA also grants immunity for a long list of specific situations. The ones that catch people most often:

  • Temporary weather-related conditions on public roads, including ice, snow, and flooding.
  • Natural conditions on unimproved government property.
  • Adopting, enforcing, or choosing not to enforce laws and regulations, though false arrest and false imprisonment are excluded from this protection.
  • Discretionary decisions to issue, deny, or revoke permits and licenses.
  • Failing to inspect, or negligently inspecting, private property for code or safety compliance.
  • Conditions on unpaved roads, trails, or footpaths providing access to recreation or scenic areas.
  • Harm caused by third parties who are not government employees.5Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 Section 34-13-3-3 – Immunity of Governmental Entity or Employee

The inspection immunity surprises people. If a building inspector misses a code violation and someone is later injured because of it, the government generally cannot be sued for the bad inspection. The claim runs against the building owner, not the inspector.

Any Fault of Your Own Bars the Claim

This is the trap most claimants do not see coming. Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, which normally reduces recovery based on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, does not apply to lawsuits against government entities. The older common-law rule of contributory negligence applies instead. If you were even slightly at fault for your own injury, your recovery is not reduced. It is eliminated.

In a routine Indiana car accident against a private driver, being 20% at fault reduces damages by 20%. The same 20% fault in a collision with a city vehicle means recovering nothing. Any plausible argument that your conduct contributed will be raised as a defense, and courts apply it strictly. Evidence that pins responsibility on the government alone matters more here than in almost any other kind of injury case.

Damage Caps and No Punitives

Winning does not mean full compensation. The combined liability of all government entities and employees for a single incident cannot exceed:

These caps apply no matter how severe the injury. A catastrophic brain injury with millions in projected lifetime costs is still capped at $700,000 against the government. Suing both the entity and the individual employee does not stack recoveries; the cap covers all government defendants combined for a single occurrence.

Punitive damages are prohibited entirely. You cannot recover them from a government entity or from an employee acting within the scope of their job, regardless of how reckless the conduct.7Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 Section 34-13-3-4 – Limitation on Aggregate Liability

When You Can Sue a Government Employee Personally

The ITCA channels lawsuits through the government entity rather than the individual. When a board, commission, or other government body took the action that hurt you, the suit runs against the body, not its individual members.2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 – Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees

You can sue an employee personally, outside the ITCA’s protections, only if their conduct was criminal, clearly outside the scope of employment, malicious, willful and wanton, or calculated for their own personal benefit.2Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 – Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees Your complaint must include a factual basis for one of those categories.

There is also a useful procedural window. If you sue an employee alleging they acted within the scope of employment, and the government answers by asserting the employee was acting outside that scope, you have 180 days from the date of that answer to amend your complaint and pursue the employee personally. That window applies even if the ordinary statute of limitations has already expired.

Types of Claims That Actually Work

Negligence is the most common surviving claim. If a government employee fails to use reasonable care performing an operational duty and that failure directly causes your injury, the claim can move forward. Typical examples include vehicle accidents involving government drivers, dangerous conditions on government property that the entity knew about and failed to fix, and poorly maintained government buildings.

Certain intentional torts also survive. Excessive force by law enforcement, false arrest, and false imprisonment can all be pursued, because the ITCA specifically carves false arrest and false imprisonment out of the general enforcement immunity.5Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 34 Article 13 Chapter 3 Section 34-13-3-3 – Immunity of Governmental Entity or Employee

Property damage claims are viable when government activity physically damages your property, as in construction projects, infrastructure work, or water and sewer failures. You still need a direct causal link, and the same notice requirements and damage caps govern the outcome.