Board of Commissioners v. Teton Corp., 30 N.E.3d 711

Jefferson County contracted with Teton (and subcontractors) using an AIA A101/A201-1987 form to repair courthouse roofing for ~$87,280; the contract incorporated an AIA subrogation waiver.
The AIA waiver bars subrogation “for damages caused by fire or other perils to the extent covered by property insurance obtained pursuant to this Paragraph 11.3 or other property insurance applicable to the Work.”
Jefferson County used its existing all-risk property insurance (St. Paul policy) to cover the work and the remainder of the courthouse rather than buying a separate builders‑risk policy.
While repairs were underway, a fire caused extensive damage beyond the repair scope; Jefferson County’s insurer paid the losses and (through the owner) sued the contractors seeking subrogation for non-work damages.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the AIA waiver barred any subrogation for losses covered by Jefferson County’s property insurance; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve whether the waiver is limited to damages to the Work (“Work vs. non‑Work” approach) or bars recovery for all losses covered by the owner’s property insurance used to insure the Work (“any insurance” approach).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the AIA subrogation waiver apply only to damages to the Work or to all losses covered by the owner’s property insurance?	Jefferson County: waiver limited to losses related to the contracted Work; non‑Work damages remain subrogable.	Contractors: waiver bars subrogation for all damages covered by the Owner’s property insurance applicable to the Work, including non‑Work losses.	Court adopts the “any insurance” approach: waiver covers all damages to the extent they are covered by the owner’s property insurance that applies to the Work; summary judgment for contractors.

Schwartz v. Heeter, 994 N.E.2d 1102 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and contract interpretation)
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (contract interpretation as a question of law suited to de novo review)
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Entrex Commc’n Servs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2008) (AIA waiver applies to both Work and non-Work losses when covered by same insurer)
Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Barker Roofing L.P., 387 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Ct. App. 2012) (AIA waiver promotes resolution of construction losses through insurance, not litigation)
Midwestern Indent. Co. v. Sys. Builders, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Court of Appeals decision applying a Work-only approach)
Allen Cty. Pub. Library v. Shambaugh & Son, L.P., 997 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals decision adopting Work-versus-non‑Work interpretation)
Haemonetics Corp. v. Brophy & Phillips Co., 501 N.E.2d 524 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986) (interpreting AIA waiver scope)