Indiana
Indiana Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, 75% State Share and Proof (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 18, 2026). · 18 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Indiana allows punitive damages, and chapter 3 of article 51 of title 34 of the Indiana Code (IC 34-51-3) regulates common-law punitive damages; the Indiana Supreme Court has held that its restrictions do not reach statutory treble or exemplary awards such as those under the Crime Victims Relief Act and the Sales Representative Act (Andrews v. Mor/Ryde, 2014). For common-law punitive damages, the party must prove every supporting fact by clear and convincing evidence, and IC 34-51-3-4 generally caps the award at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $50,000.
Indiana also takes most of a common-law punitive award: under IC 34-51-3-6, the clerk pays 25% to the person awarded punitive damages and 75% to the violent crime victims compensation fund. Punitive damages are not recoverable in a wrongful death action and are barred against governmental entities and their employees acting within the scope of employment. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.
Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Indiana state law on punitive damages in civil cases: IC 34-51-3, the wrongful death and government provisions of title 34, and the other statutes and Indiana court decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory damages or the rest of medical malpractice law (see Indiana medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Indiana wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.
Does Indiana allow punitive damages?
Yes. Indiana courts award punitive damages, and since 1998 the rules have been collected in IC 34-51-3. Section 1 sets the reach of that chapter broadly:
"This chapter applies to all cases in which a party requests the recovery of punitive damages in a civil action."
The chapter regulates proof, the cap, jury instructions and who receives the money. It does not define the conduct that justifies punitive damages; that standard comes from Indiana Supreme Court decisions.
Common-law punitive damages, not statutory awards. Indiana courts read the chapter more narrowly than its first section. In Andrews v. Mor/Ryde International, Inc., 10 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. 2014), the Indiana Supreme Court wrote that "Indiana significantly restricts recovery of common-law punitive damages, including a heightened burden of proof, a cap on their amount, and diverting 75% of such awards to the State," and held that those restrictions do not reach treble-damage awards under the Crime Victims Relief Act or exemplary damages under the Sales Representative Act.
On September 30, 2026, the Indiana Court of Appeals applied the same line to a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act claim tried in an Indiana court, holding that "there is no legal basis under Indiana law for applying the heightened burden of proof" to that federal statutory claim (Hunter Warfield, Inc. v. Mai, No. 25A-CT-48).
What must be proven
Clear and convincing evidence of every supporting fact. IC 34-51-3-2 provides:
"Before a person may recover punitive damages in any civil action, that person must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the facts that are relied upon by that person to support the recovery of punitive damages."
More than negligence. In Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. 1986), the Indiana Supreme Court applied this passage from its earlier decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong (Ind. 1982):
"Punitive damages should not be allowable upon evidence that is merely consistent with the hypothesis of malice, fraud, gross negligence or oppressiveness. Rather some evidence should be required that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the tortious conduct was the result of a mistake of law or fact, honest error of judgment, over-zealousness, mere negligence or other such noniniquitous human failing."
Orkin predates IC 34-51-3, which was recodified in 1998 from IC 34-4-34; the chapter sets the burden of proof but does not define the conduct standard.
Criminal prosecution is no defense. Under IC 34-24-3-3, "it is not a defense to an action for punitive damages that the defendant is subject to criminal prosecution for the act or omission that gave rise to the civil action." The same section provides that a person may not recover both punitive damages and the amounts provided for crime victims under IC 34-24-3-1 or 1.5 (section 1 includes an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages).
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Indiana?
Yes. IC 34-51-3-4 provides:
"A punitive damage award may not be more than the greater of: (1) three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the action; or (2) fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)."
Because the cap is "the greater of" the two figures, $50,000 operates as the cap whenever three times compensatory damages would be less. If a jury or judge awards more, IC 34-51-3-5 requires that "the court shall reduce the punitive damage award to not more than the greater of" the same two amounts.
In State v. Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2013), the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a trial court ruling against the cap and allocation and held that IC 34-51-3-4, -5 and -6 do not violate the Indiana Constitution's right to trial by jury in civil cases (Article 1, Section 20) or its separation of powers (Article 3, Section 1).
No listed exceptions. Neither section contains an exception for intentional torts, drunk driving, felonies or product liability. For crash claims generally, see Indiana car accident laws.
Medical malpractice. In a case under Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, IC 34-18-14-3 separately limits "the total amount recoverable for an injury or death of a patient" ($1,800,000 for an act of malpractice that occurs after June 30, 2019), and that section makes no exception for punitive damages; see Indiana medical malpractice law.
Claim-specific measures. Some statutes outside chapter 34-51-3 set their own amounts for the punitive or exemplary damages they authorize:
| Statute | What it allows |
|---|---|
| IC 24-2-3-4(c) | "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a)" |
| IC 24-4-7-5(b) | A principal who in bad faith fails to comply with subsection (a) is liable, in a civil action by the sales representative, for exemplary damages "no more than three (3) times the sum of the commissions owed" |
| IC 8-1-26-22(b) (damage to underground facilities: action by the facility operator) | "At the court's discretion," punitive damages "up to three (3) times the operator's actual damage" |
| IC 22-4-13.3-6(a)(2) | An employer may be ordered to pay punitive damages to the department "not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each pay period" it failed to withhold income as required or knowingly misrepresented the employee's income |
| IC 24-11-5-1(d)(3) (bad faith assertions of patent infringement, such as demand letters) | In a civil action under that section, punitive damages "in the amount of the greater of" $50,000 or three times actual damages |
| IC 24-5-13.5-13(a)(3) (buyback vehicle disclosure) | Except as provided in IC 34-30-34-3 (dealer immunity for a section 10 violation where the dealer reasonably and in good faith believed the vehicle was not a buyback vehicle), a person who fails to comply with sections 10, 11 or 12 of the chapter is liable for "not more than three (3) times the value of the actual damages or the consideration as exemplary damages" |
| IC 13-25-4-10(c) | In a state action against a person liable for a release of a hazardous substance who fails, without sufficient cause, to provide court-ordered removal or remedial action, the court may award punitive damages "for up to three hundred percent (300%) of the total costs incurred by the department," subject to offset for civil penalties paid |
Some of these are statutory awards that sit outside IC 34-51-3 altogether; the Indiana Supreme Court so held for IC 24-4-7-5(b) in Andrews (2014).
The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Indiana verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them. Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income even when they arise from a physical injury (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.
Indiana takes 75% of a punitive award
Indiana's split-recovery rule is in IC 34-51-3-6. Except as provided in IC 13-25-4-10, the defendant must notify the attorney general's office when a verdict includes punitive damages, and must pay the award to the clerk of the court. The clerk then must:
"(1) pay the person to whom punitive damages were awarded twenty-five percent (25%) of the punitive damage award; and (2) pay the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) of the punitive damage award to the treasurer of state, who shall deposit the funds into the violent crime victims compensation fund established by IC 5-2-6.1-40."
The attorney general's office "may negotiate and compromise" the state's 75% (IC 34-51-3-6(d)), and the state's interest "is effective when a finder of fact announces a verdict that includes punitive damages" (IC 34-51-3-6(e)).
Like the burden of proof and the cap, the allocation applies to common-law punitive damages: in Andrews (2014) the Indiana Supreme Court held that exemplary damages under the Sales Representative Act (IC 24-4-7-5(b)) are not subject to IC 34-51-3, as it had held for treble damages under the Crime Victims Relief Act.
Upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court. In Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003), the court held that the allocation statute "does not create an unconstitutional taking of property. Nor does it place a demand on an attorney's particular services in violation of the Indiana Constitution." It explained:
"The Indiana legislature has chosen to define the plaintiff's interest in a punitive damages award as only twenty-five percent of any award, and the remainder is to go to the Violent Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. The award to the Fund is not the property of the plaintiff."
How the award is decided
The jury is not told about the cap or the split. Under IC 34-51-3-3, a jury "may not be advised of: (1) the limitation on the amount of a punitive damage award under section 4 of this chapter; or (2) the requirement under section 6 of this chapter concerning allocation of money received in payment of a punitive damage award."
The court enforces the cap. The trier of fact sets the amount, and the court reduces anything above the IC 34-51-3-4 limit (IC 34-51-3-5).
No prejudgment interest. IC 34-51-4-3 provides that the prejudgment interest chapter "does not impose liability for prejudgment interest on any part of a judgment that is awarded as punitive damages."
IC 34-51-3 contains no rule requiring court permission to plead punitive damages and does not itself require a separate trial phase. Under Indiana Trial Rule 42(C), the court on its own motion or a party's motion "for good cause shown" may allow a case to be tried and submitted to the jury in stages, including "bifurcation of claims or issues of compensatory and punitive damages."
When an employer is liable for an employee's conduct
IC 34-51-3 does not address an employer's liability for punitive damages based on an employee's conduct. The Indiana Court of Appeals held in Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), that punitive damages "should not be imposed against a corporation strictly on the basis of respondeat superior for an employee's misconduct." The court required "evidence of positive or collusive action by the employer," such as prior authorization of the agent's act, reckless employment or retention of an unfit agent, an agent employed in a managerial capacity acting within the scope of employment, or ratification or approval of the agent's action after the fact.
Punitive damages in Indiana wrongful death cases
Punitive damages are not available in a wrongful death action. In Durham v. U-Haul International, 745 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. 2001), the Indiana Supreme Court stated:
"We adhere to precedent that punitive damages are not recoverable in an action brought under the wrongful death statute. We also hold that the wrongful death statute provides the only remedy against a person causing the death of a spouse and there is no independent claim against this person for loss of consortium."
The general wrongful death section, IC 34-23-1-1, lets the personal representative sue and leaves the amount of damages to the court or jury without mentioning punitive damages. The adult-death statute is explicit: in an action for the death of an adult person, the damages "may not include: (A) damages awarded for a person's grief; or (B) punitive damages" (IC 34-23-1-2(c)(2)).
Who brings the claim, who shares in it and the deadlines are on the Indiana wrongful death page.
Government and public-safety defendants
Governmental entities and employees. The Indiana Tort Claims Act provides: "A governmental entity or an employee of a governmental entity acting within the scope of employment is not liable for punitive damages" (IC 34-13-3-4(b)).
Federal civil-rights judgments against public employees. Where a public employee faces personal liability for a noncriminal act within the scope of employment that violates federal civil rights laws, IC 34-13-4-1 requires the governmental entity (when it defends or has the opportunity to defend the employee, and subject to IC 34-13-3-4 and other listed sections) to pay "any judgment (other than for punitive damages)," and allows it to pay a judgment for punitive damages only if the governor (for a state employee) or the political subdivision's governing body determines that paying it "is in the best interest of the governmental entity."
Risk-management funds. The political subdivision risk management fund and catastrophic liability fund statutes each provide: "No amount may be paid from the fund in respect of punitive damages paid by or assessed against a member of the fund" (IC 27-1-29-14(c); 27-1-29.1-18(a)).
Volunteer firefighters and fast responders. "A volunteer fire department is not liable for punitive damages" (IC 36-8-12-15). A volunteer firefighter or member of the emergency medical services personnel is not liable for punitive damages for acts within the scope of those duties (IC 36-8-12-8). Where a county has approved community fast responder services by ordinance and the nonprofit corporation has bought the required insurance, a community fast responder is not liable for punitive damages for acts within the scope of the responder's duties, and "a community fast responder nonprofit corporation is not liable for punitive damages" (IC 36-8-23-5).
Does insurance pay punitive damages in Indiana?
In Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co., 672 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a business whose sole shareholder and director herself committed the willful and malicious acts behind a punitive award "cannot shift the obligation to pay the punitive damages to its insurer." The court contrasted, drawing on a federal decision, a punitive award placed on a corporation "solely as a matter of vicarious liability."
Punitive damages are prohibited "in a breach of contract action," but an insurer's bad-faith breach of its duty of good faith is "an independent tort for the breach of the insurer's obligation to exercise good faith . . . upon which punitive damages may be based" (Baldwin v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., Ind. Oct. 21, 2025).
Indiana punitive damages at a glance
| Question | Indiana rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Availability | Allowed; IC 34-51-3 regulates common-law punitive damages, not statutory treble or exemplary awards | IC 34-51-3-1; Andrews v. Mor/Ryde (Ind. 2014) |
| Conduct standard | Evidence inconsistent with mistake, honest error, over-zealousness or mere negligence | Orkin v. Traina (Ind. 1986) |
| Burden of proof | Clear and convincing evidence of all facts relied on (common-law punitive damages) | IC 34-51-3-2; Hunter Warfield v. Mai (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) |
| General cap | Greater of 3x compensatory or $50,000 for common-law awards; no exceptions listed in the cap sections | IC 34-51-3-4, 34-51-3-5; State v. Doe (Ind. 2013) |
| Claim-specific measures | For example twice the IC 24-2-3-4(a) award; up to 300% of department costs (IC 13-25-4-10) | See table above |
| State share | For common-law punitive awards, 75% to the violent crime victims compensation fund, 25% to the person awarded; IC 13-25-4-10 recoveries excepted | IC 34-51-3-6; Cheatham v. Pohle (Ind. 2003); Andrews v. Mor/Ryde (Ind. 2014) |
| Jury told of cap or split | No | IC 34-51-3-3 |
| Prejudgment interest | Not imposed on punitive damages | IC 34-51-4-3 |
| Wrongful death | Not recoverable; adult-death statute excludes them | Durham v. U-Haul (Ind. 2001); IC 34-23-1-2(c)(2) |
| Government | Governmental entities and employees within scope not liable | IC 34-13-3-4(b) |
| Criminal prosecution | Not a defense | IC 34-24-3-3 |
| Employer liability | Not imposed on a corporation solely by respondeat superior; evidence of the employer's own authorization, reckless hiring or retention, a managerial agent, or ratification | Estate of Mayer v. Lax (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) |
| Insurance | A business whose owner herself committed the willful and malicious acts could not shift the punitive award to its insurer | Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) |
Recent changes
The core rules have been stable. IC 34-51-3-1 through 34-51-3-5 carry no amendment since the 1998 recodification (P.L.1-1998), and the allocation section, IC 34-51-3-6, was last amended by P.L.105-2006 and P.L.1-2007.
Related pages
- Punitive damages laws by state
- Indiana wrongful death law
- Indiana medical malpractice law
- Indiana car accident laws
This article provides general legal information about Indiana punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Indiana.
Last updated: 2026-10-18.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Indiana allow punitive damages?
Yes. IC 34-51-3 regulates common-law punitive damages, and the party must establish all supporting facts by clear and convincing evidence (IC 34-51-3-2); the Indiana Supreme Court has held that the chapter does not reach statutory treble or exemplary awards such as those under the Sales Representative Act (Andrews v. Mor/Ryde, 2014). They are not available in wrongful death actions or against governmental entities and their employees acting within the scope of employment.
What is the cap on punitive damages in Indiana?
Generally the greater of three times compensatory damages or $50,000 (IC 34-51-3-4), and the court must reduce a larger award (IC 34-51-3-5). Some claim-specific statutes set their own measures, such as twice any award made under IC 24-2-3-4(a) for willful and malicious misappropriation, or up to 300% of the department's costs in a state action under IC 13-25-4-10. In a Medical Malpractice Act case, IC 34-18-14-3 also limits the total amount recoverable for an injury or death of a patient.
How much of a punitive damages award goes to the state in Indiana?
For a common-law punitive award, under IC 34-51-3-6 the clerk pays 25% of the award to the person awarded punitive damages and 75% to the treasurer of state for the violent crime victims compensation fund. Recoveries under IC 13-25-4-10 are excepted, and the attorney general may negotiate and compromise the state's share.
Are punitive damages available in an Indiana wrongful death case?
No. The Indiana Supreme Court held in Durham v. U-Haul International (2001) that punitive damages are not recoverable in an action brought under the wrongful death statute, and IC 34-23-1-2(c)(2) provides that damages for the death of an adult person may not include punitive damages.
What must be proven for punitive damages in Indiana?
For common-law punitive damages, all facts relied on must be established by clear and convincing evidence (IC 34-51-3-2). Under Orkin Exterminating v. Traina (Ind. 1986), there must be some evidence inconsistent with the hypothesis that the conduct was the result of a mistake of law or fact, honest error of judgment, over-zealousness or mere negligence.
Are punitive damages available against the government in Indiana?
No. Under IC 34-13-3-4(b), a governmental entity or an employee of a governmental entity acting within the scope of employment is not liable for punitive damages. Volunteer fire departments are also not liable for them (IC 36-8-12-15), nor are community fast responder nonprofit corporations where the county has approved their services by ordinance and the corporation has bought the required insurance (IC 36-8-23-5).
Does the Indiana punitive damages cap have an exception for drunk driving?
IC 34-51-3-4 and 34-51-3-5, the cap and reduction sections, list no exception for drunk driving, intentional torts, felonies or product liability.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Indiana Code, TITLE 34. CIVIL LAW AND PROCEDURE
§ 34-51-3-4Maximum award of damagesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 4. A punitive damage award may not be more than the greater of: (1) three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the action; or (2) fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). [Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-34-4.]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Weidman v. Erie Insurance Group (Indiana Court of Appeals 2001, 745 N.E.2d 292)“…l cash value were the same amount. 2 . I.C. § 34-51-3-4 sets the maximum award of damages, and…”
- Techna-Fit, Inc. and Stuart Trotter v. Fluid Transfer Products, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals 2015, 45 N.E.3d 399)“…ory damages awarded for Trotter’s breach of fiduciary duty. I.C. § 34-51-3-4. Because FTP was awarded $125,000 for h…”
- State of Indiana v. John Doe (Indiana Supreme Court 2013, 987 N.E.2d 1066)“…3 Ind. Code § 34-51-3-4 (2008). This cap is accompanied by an a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Indiana (2026): Deadlines & Liability
§ 34-51-3-6Payment and allocation of damages; notification; negotiation of award; state's interest in awardIn force
Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided in IC 13-25-4-10, when a finder of fact announces a verdict that includes a punitive damage award in a civil action, the party against whom the judgment was entered shall notify the office of the attorney general of the punitive damage award. (b) When a punitive damage award is paid, the party against whom the judgment was entered shall pay the punitive damage award to the clerk of the court where the action is pending. (c) Upon receiving the payment described in subsection (b), the clerk of the court shall: (1) pay the person to whom punitive damages were awarded twenty-five percent (25%) of the punitive damage award; and (2) pay the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) of the punitive damage award to the treasurer of state, who shall deposit the funds into the violent crime victims compensation fund established by IC 5-2-6.1-40. (d) The office of the attorney general may negotiate and compromise a punitive damage award described in subsection (c)(2). (e) The state's interest in a punitive damage award described in subsection (c)(2) is effective when a finder of fact announces a verdict that includes punitive damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
§ 34-51-3-2Necessity of evidence of factsIn force
Sec. 2. Before a person may recover punitive damages in any civil action, that person must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the facts that are relied upon by that person to support the recovery of punitive damages. [Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-34-2.]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
§ 34-23-1-2Wrongful death actions; damagesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this section, "adult person" means: (1) an unmarried individual: (A) who does not have any dependents; and (B) who is not a child (as defined in IC 34-23-2-1); or (2) a married individual: (A) who does not have any dependents; and (B) whose death was caused by the married individual's spouse. (b) If the death of an adult person is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another person, only the personal representative of the adult person may maintain an action against the person whose wrongful act or omission caused the death of the adult person. (c) In an action to recover damages for the death of an adult person, the damages: (1) must be in an amount determined by a: (A) court; or (B) jury; (2) may not include: (A) damages awarded for a person's grief; or (B) punitive damages; and (3) may include but are not limited to the following: (A) Reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses necessitated by the wrongful act or omission that caused the adult person's death. (B) Loss of the adult person's love and companionship.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International (Indiana Supreme Court 2001, 745 N.E.2d 755)“…ements of damages under the child wrongful death statute. I.C. §§ 34-23-1-2, -2-1. Plaintiffs also note the langu…”
- McCabe v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance (Indiana Supreme Court 2011, 949 N.E.2d 816)“…ent finding that the Adult Wrongful Death Statute (“AWDS”), Ind.Code § 34-23-1-2, does not allow recovery of attorney fe…”
- Butler v. Indiana Department of Insurance (Indiana Supreme Court 2009, 904 N.E.2d 198)“…ngful death of unmarried adult persons with no dependents, Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2 (1999), in the event medical providers…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wrongful Death Laws in Indiana (2026): Deadlines & Who Can Sue
§ 34-13-3-4Limitation on aggregate liability; punitive damages prohibitedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Sec. 4. (a) The combined aggregate liability of all governmental entities and of all public employees, acting within the scope of their employment and not excluded from liability under section 3 of this chapter, does not exceed: (1) for injury to or death of one (1) person in any one (1) occurrence: (A) three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for a cause of action that accrues before January 1, 2006; (B) five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for a cause of action that accrues on or after January 1, 2006, and before January 1, 2008; or (C) seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) for a cause of action that accrues on or after January 1, 2008; and (2) for injury to or death of all persons in that occurrence, five million dollars ($5,000,000). (b) A governmental entity or an employee of a governmental entity acting within the scope of employment is not liable for punitive damages. [Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-16.5-4.]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cantrell v. Morris (Indiana Supreme Court 2006, 849 N.E.2d 488)“…governmental entity acting within the scope of employment. I.C. § 34-13-3-4(b); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2674. We do not bel…”
- GREATER HAMMOND COMMUNITY SERV., INC. v. Mutka (Indiana Supreme Court 2000, 735 N.E.2d 780)“…2d ___ (Ind. 2000). ----------------------- [1] Currently Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-4 (West Supp. 1999). [2] Currently Ind. C…”
- Brownsburg Community School Corp. v. Natare Corp. (Indiana Supreme Court 2005, 824 N.E.2d 336)“…d of punitive damages against a governmental entity. I.C. § 34-13-3-4(b). Courts have also been reluctant to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Indiana Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability and Comparative Fault
Indiana Code, TITLE 24. TRADE REGULATION
§ 24-11-5-1Civil actions; expenses and costs; remediesIn force
Sec. 1. (a) A target, or a person aggrieved by a violation of: (1) this article; or (2) rules adopted under this article; may bring an action in a court with jurisdiction. (b) A person shall, not later than thirty (30) days after filing a complaint with a court in an action under subsection (a), mail or deliver a copy of the complaint to the office of the attorney general. (c) A court may award reasonable attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs to a person who prevails in an action under subsection (a). (d) A court may, in addition to fees, expenses, and costs under subsection (c), award any or all of the following to a complainant who prevails in an action under subsection (a): (1) Declaratory or equitable relief. (2) The greater of: (A) actual damages; or (B) liquidated damages for each complainant who prevails in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each demand letter that the complainant received. (3) Punitive damages in the amount of the greater of: (A) fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or (B) three (3) times the amount of actual damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- IC 34-51-3: Punitive damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. 1986)(www.courtlistener.com)
- IC 34-24-3-3: Action for punitive damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 24-2-3-4(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 24-4-7-5(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 8-1-26-22: Damage to underground facilities(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 22-4-13.3-6(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 24-11-5-1: Bad faith assertions of patent infringement(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 13-25-4-10: Actions to recover costs and damages; punitive damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- 26 U.S.C. 104: Compensation for injuries or sickness(www.govinfo.gov).gov
- Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003)(www.courtlistener.com)
- IC 34-51-4-3: Prejudgment interest and punitive damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- Durham v. U-Haul International, 745 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. 2001)(www.courtlistener.com)
- IC 34-23-1-1 and 34-23-1-2: Wrongful death actions; damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 34-13-3-4: Limitation on aggregate liability; punitive damages prohibited(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 34-13-4-1: Civil rights liability of public employees(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 27-1-29-14 and 27-1-29.1-18(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 36-8-12-8 and 36-8-12-15(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 36-8-23-5: Community fast responders(iga.in.gov).gov
- Indiana Trial Rule 42: Consolidation, separate trials(rules.incourts.gov)
- State v. Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2013)(static.case.law)
- Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)(static.case.law)
- Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co., 672 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)(static.case.law)
- IC 34-18-14-3: Medical malpractice recovery limitations(iga.in.gov).gov
- IC 24-5-13.5-13: Buyback vehicle disclosure; liability(iga.in.gov).gov
- Andrews v. Mor/Ryde International, Inc., 10 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. 2014)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Hunter Warfield, Inc. v. Mai, No. 25A-CT-48 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2026)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Baldwin v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., No. 25S-CT-33 (Ind. Oct. 21, 2025)(www.courtlistener.com)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.