Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company

── Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company ── Case No.: 26S-PL-00083 Court: Indiana Supreme Court Date: March 17, 2026 Author: Derek Molter Category: General IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No. 26S-PL-83 FILED Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, Mar 17 2026, 2:45 pm Appellant-Defendant, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court and Indiana Department of Insurance, Defendant, –v– Technology Insurance Company, Appellee-Plaintiff. Argued: September 4, 2025 | Decided: March 17, 2026 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court No. 49D13-2207-PL-22174 The Honorable James Joven, Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals No. 24A-PL-857 Opinion by Justice Slaughter Justices Massa, Goff, and Molter concur. Chief Justice Rush concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion. Slaughter, Justice. By law, Indiana pools insurance companies to share the risks of provid- ing worker’s compensation coverage to employers that cannot obtain in- surance. Technology Insurance Company provides worker’s compensa- tion insurance under this statutory scheme through a contractual “As- signed Risk Plan” with the Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, which oversees this statewide pooling arrangement. After reaching a multi-mil- lion-dollar settlement for a policy issued under the Plan, the Company sought reimbursement from the Bureau, but the Bureau denied repay- ment. After almost five years of litigation, an administrative law judge, ALJ, found the Company was entitled to full repayment. The Company then sought attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses from a trial court on ju- dicial review, but the Bureau opposed it. The trial court granted the Com- pany’s request for fees, interest, and all other appropriate relief. On appeal, the Bureau now concedes the Company is entitled to fees, but it says the Company must first exhaust administrative remedies on these claims. This action, the Bureau claims, is, at bottom, an agency action requiring exhaustion. We hold that the Company must exhaust adminis- trative remedies because of the Plan’s dispute-resolution provisions and underlying contracts, and that the Company did so by pursuing its under- lying claim against the Bureau. We affirm the trial court’s judgment grant- ing the Company’s petition for judicial review and remand with instruc- tions. I A From 2008 to 2020, Technology Insurance Company provided worker’s compensation insurance in Indiana to employers that could not obtain in- surance through the voluntary market. Ind. Code § 27-7-2-28.1(c). The Company was one of five Servicing Carriers licensed in Indiana to provide such coverage. The Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau oversaw the Company as a Servicing Carrier and is a private, nonprofit association of all insurance companies licensed to provide worker’s compensation insur- ance in Indiana—overseeing more than 700 such insurers. Id. § 27-7-2-3. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-PL-83 | March 17, 2026 Page 2 of 19 To carry out this statewide system, the Bureau administers the Assigned Risk Plan, which connects Servicing Carriers to eligible employers. Id. § 27-7-2-28.1(b) The Bureau assigns Servicing Carriers to issue worker’s compensation policies to employers that “are in good faith entitle