Reading time: 7 minutes
Merrillville hub – Although the first half of 2026 did not produce a large number of published Indiana appellate decisions directly addressing construction law, two opinions issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals warrant the attention of every owner, developer, general contractor, subcontractor, construction attorney, and claims professional.
One addresses the enforceability of arbitration agreements in construction contracts. The other limits the scope of statutory liability under Indiana’s Home Improvement Contracts Act (“HICA”) and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“DCSA”). Together, these opinions reinforce two recurring themes in Indiana construction law: careful contract drafting matters, and statutory liability will not be expanded beyond the language enacted by the General Assembly.
I. Rechlicz v. Price Point Builders, LLC
Joseph S. Rechlicz, et al. v. Price Point Builders, LLC, No. 25A-PL-1071 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2026).
Background
The homeowners contracted with Price Point Builders to construct a new residence. During the project, the parties executed both a Construction Agreement and a Limited Warranty Agreement. Each agreement contained an arbitration provision—but with an important distinction.
The Construction Agreement provided that arbitration was available at the option of either party, while the subsequently executed Limited Warranty Agreement stated that disputes “shall be resolved by arbitration.” After the homeowners filed suit alleging numerous construction defects, Price Point participated in litigation for approximately fourteen months before moving to compel arbitration pursuant to the Limited Warranty Agreement. The homeowners argued that arbitration was optional and, alternatively, that Price Point had waived any right to compel arbitration through its litigation conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration.
Judge DeBoer, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that the homeowners’ claims arose under the Limited Warranty Agreement, whose language made arbitration mandatory. The Court further held that Price Point had not waived its contractual right to arbitrate. Although litigation had been pending for over a year, the Court found no intentional relinquishment of the contractual right to arbitration and emphasized Indiana’s longstanding policy favoring enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.
Why This Decision Matters for Construction Law
For construction professionals, Rechlicz provides several important reminders.
First, courts will carefully examine every project document, not merely the prime construction contract. Warranty agreements, change orders, supplemental conditions, and other ancillary agreements may ultimately control the parties’ rights.
Second, arbitration provisions deserve significantly more attention during contract negotiations than they often receive. A single word—such as “may” versus “shall”—can determine whether a dispute is litigated in court or resolved before an arbitrator.
Finally, the decision reinforces Indiana’s strong public policy favoring arbitration. Courts will not readily conclude that a contractor has waived its contractual right to arbitrate absent clear evidence of an intentional relinquishment of that right.
Practice Pointer
Contractors should conduct periodic reviews of all standard project and contract documents to ensure that dispute resolution provisions remain consistent throughout the contract package and comply with current construction law, statutes, and evolving legal requirements of the applicable jurisdiction. Regular updates help ensure that contract language reflects the latest developments in construction law and reduces the risk of unintended inconsistencies. Conflicting arbitration clauses can create costly litigation over the proper forum before the merits of a construction dispute are ever addressed.
II. Castle Construction Corp. v. Leibengood-Chavez
Castle Construction Corp., et al. v. Leibengood-Chavez, No. 25A-PL-1373 (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2026).
Background
The homeowner hired ARK Supplies, Inc. to perform renovations to her residence, but ARK did not provide the homeowner with a home improvement contract. The homeowner was unaware that ARK was not licensed to perform home improvement work within the municipality. Castle Construction, a licensed contractor, obtained the building permit, to perform a sunroom addition and construct a deck on the homeowner’s residence. The building permit application listed Castle as the contractor, but ARK performed the renovations. ARK reimbursed Castle for the cost of the building permit. The homeowner did not meet with Castle, never hired Castle to do work on her residence, was unaware of Castle’s involvement in the project, and Castle did not perform any work on the residence.
After problems arose with the project, the homeowner asserted claims under Indiana’s Home Improvement Contracts Act (“HICA”) and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“DCSA”). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the homeowner, concluding that Castle qualified as a statutory supplier under both Acts.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.
The majority concluded that Castle Construction was not a “real property improvement supplier” under HICA because it neither solicited nor entered into the home improvement contract with the homeowner. Because Castle did not qualify as a supplier under HICA, it likewise could not be held liable as a supplier under the DCSA under the facts presented. The Court therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment and directed that judgment be entered in favor of Castle. Chief Judge Tavitas dissented, concluding that Castle should qualify as a supplier under HICA based upon its role in obtaining the building permit and participating in the project.
Why This Decision Matters for Construction Law
Castle Construction is an important reminder that statutory liability cannot simply be assumed because a construction dispute exists.
Instead, courts will closely examine the statutory definitions enacted by the Legislature before imposing liability. Plaintiffs asserting claims under HICA or the DCSA must establish that the defendant actually falls within the statutory definition of a regulated supplier.
Notably, HICA defines a “real property improvement supplier” broadly to include a person who enters into a home improvement contract with a consumer or who “otherwise engages with a consumer” for the purpose of soliciting, offering, negotiating, or performing a home improvement. See Ind. Code § 24-5-11-2. Despite this broad language, the Court concluded that Castle Construction did not qualify as a supplier under HICA. Although Castle obtained the building permit for the project and was identified on the permit application as the contractor, the undisputed evidence established that Castle never contracted with the homeowner, never communicated with her, never negotiated the project, never performed any work on the residence, and that the homeowner was entirely unaware of Castle’s involvement.
The Court therefore held that merely obtaining a building permit, standing alone, was insufficient to constitute the type of consumer engagement contemplated by HICA. In other words, the phrase “otherwise engages with a consumer” requires some meaningful, direct interaction with the homeowner in connection with the home improvement transaction—not simply the performance of an administrative or regulatory function associated with the project.
Although the decision arose in the residential construction context, the Court’s analytical approach has broader implications. Indiana appellate courts continue to begin with the statutory text rather than expanding liability beyond the language chosen by the Legislature.
Practice Pointer
Residential contractors should understand precisely when HICA applies—and, just as importantly, when it does not. Contractors should periodically review their residential contract forms and business practices to ensure compliance with HICA’s disclosure and contractual requirements, as well as any statutory amendments or evolving judicial interpretations. Taking a proactive approach can significantly reduce the risk of statutory claims and avoid disputes that arise from technical deficiencies in contract language rather than the quality of the work performed.
Likewise, insurers and defense counsel evaluating statutory claims should carefully analyze whether every element of HICA has been satisfied before assuming enhanced remedies such as attorney’s fees or treble damages are available. The mere allegation of a HICA violation does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to statutory relief. Instead, counsel should closely examine whether the contract falls within HICA’s scope, whether the alleged violation is actionable under the statute, and whether the plaintiff can establish the statutory prerequisites for enhanced damages. A thorough early evaluation can significantly impact litigation strategy, settlement value, and overall exposure.
Conclusion
The first half of 2026 produced two noteworthy Indiana appellate decisions that will likely have an impact on Indiana construction industry for years to come. Although addressing different issues, each decision provides meaningful guidance to contractors, owners, design professionals, insurers, and the attorneys who represent them.
Rechlicz underscores the importance of carefully drafted and coordinated dispute-resolution provisions and confirms Indiana’s continued willingness to enforce valid arbitration agreements. Castle Construction reinforces that statutory liability under HICA and the DCSA will be determined by the language enacted by the Legislature—not by expanding consumer protection statutes beyond their intended scope.
For owners, contractors, subcontractors, and insurers alike, the practical lessons of Indiana construction law are straightforward. Carefully drafted contracts remain the foundation of effective risk management, and a thorough understanding of Indiana’s statutory framework is essential when evaluating or defending construction claims. As these decisions demonstrate, many of the most significant outcomes in construction litigation are determined long before a case ever reaches trial.
About the Author
John VanDenburgh is a Partner in the Merrillville, Indiana office of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. He focuses his practice on construction law, transportation litigation, and complex commercial disputes, representing owners, developers, general contractors, subcontractors, insurers, and other construction industry participants throughout Indiana and the Midwest.
If you have questions regarding these decisions or would like to discuss how recent developments in Indiana construction law may impact your business, contracts, or claims, John can be reached at john.vandenburgh@qpwblaw.com.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.