D & D NAPA, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 44 N.E.3d 67

D & D NAPA, Inc. purchased certain assets from Chaffins Enterprises in April/May 2010 (inventory, furniture/fixtures, store shelving, NAPA signage, phone number) and leased the retail space; purchase price items on the bill of sale totaled about $38,077.29.
Chaffins later filed a Report of Transfer / Inactivation with Indiana DWD, indicating a purchase of its retail business and cessation of operations for that portion.
DWD determined there was a disposition/transfer and treated D & D as a successor (partial), reallocating experience account balances and increasing D & D’s contribution rate for 2012; D & D protested.
At hearing, DWD witnesses relied on the transfer form, public records, continuity of NAPA retail identity, phone number, premises use, and two former Chaffins employees later working for D & D to support successorship.
D & D (Dittrich) admitted buying inventory, fixtures, racking and using NAPA branding but argued it bought only assets (not goodwill, corporate name, accounts, or the repair/service business) and did not acquire substantially all assets or customers.
The ALJ found D & D acquired Chaffins’s retail auto‑parts business (but not the service/repair center) and thus was a partial successor under Ind. Code § 22-4-10-6(b); the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether D & D is a successor employer (full or partial) of Chaffins for unemployment contribution purposes	DWD: transfer of Chaffins’s retail assets, continuity of NAPA store identity, phone, location use and rehiring of two employees show a continuation of the business and justify successorship	D & D: purchased only limited assets (inventory, fixtures), not goodwill, name, customers, or service business; thus did not acquire substantially all assets and should not inherit experience balance	Court affirmed ALJ: D & D acquired Chaffins’s retail auto‑parts business (a distinct/segregable portion) and is a partial successor under Ind. Code § 22‑4‑10‑6(b)

Indianapolis Concrete, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (lists factors for evaluating whether substantially all assets were acquired)
UTLX Mfg., Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 906 N.E.2d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (transfer of unit with employees and physical assets can constitute full successorship)
Astral Indus., Inc. v. Ind. Emp. Sec. Bd., 419 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) ("substantially" is elastic; focus on whether acquisition resulted in substantial continuation of same business)
Ashlin Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Ind. Unemployment Ins. Bd., 637 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (employees may be treated as assets and support finding of a distinct and segregable portion)
Franklin Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 953 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2011) (ALJ findings of fact are binding; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)