Illinois Casualty Company v. Jessica Burciaga, 235 N.E.3d 827

Several models alleged that three Indiana strip clubs (“Insured Clubs”) used their images in social media ads without authorization from 2014–2020, and sued under the Lanham Act, Indiana Right of Publicity Law, and unjust enrichment.
The Insured Clubs held insurance policies from Illinois Casualty Company (ICC), which from 2016 onward included an arbitration clause referencing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
The ICC denied coverage twice; the Insured Clubs settled with the Models and assigned the Models their rights under the insurance policies.
ICC filed for declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify; the trial court compelled arbitration for all Models.
The appellate court found none of the Models plausibly pleaded claims within the arbitration clause’s scope, but the Indiana Supreme Court vacated that opinion upon transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do agreements incorporating AAA rules clearly delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator?	Yes – reference to AAA rules is clear intent.	No – mere reference isn’t clear enough.	Yes – incorporation of AAA rules is clear and unmistakable evidence.
Do all Models (including pre-2016 claims) have a right to arbitrate arbitrability?	Yes – assignment makes all Models parties.	No – no arbitration agreement pre-2016.	Only post-2016 Models can compel; pre-2016 Models cannot.
Was the settlement’s assignment of rights to the Models valid despite policy restrictions?	Yes – post-loss assignments ok under Indiana law.	No – ICC consent to assignment was required by policy.	Yes – post-loss assignments are valid under Indiana law.
Who decides if a dispute is subject to arbitration (arbitrability) in these policies?	Arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction.	Court must determine threshold question.	Arbitrator decides for 2016+ claims with AAA rules; court for pre-2016.

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (Distinguishes who has authority to decide arbitrability; establishes "clear and unmistakable" standard)
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2019) (Confirms that if parties delegate arbitrability, courts must defer even if arbitration claim appears frivolous)
Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2010) (Addresses validity and delegation in arbitration agreements)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (U.S. 2009) (Explains state law governs who is bound by arbitration agreement)
MPACT Constr. Grp., LLC v. Superior Concrete Constructors, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. 2004) (Indiana policy favors arbitration but only if parties agreed)
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. 2008) (Consent-to-assignment clauses do not bar post-loss assignments in Indiana)