Imperial Insurance Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. v. Costello, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 151

Imperial provides restoration services and obtains referrals from insurers for property damage claims.
Costello signed a Work Authorization for Imperial's repairs after a pipe burst in their home, despite Costello testifying he did not read it.
The contract labeled Imperial as a third-party beneficiary to insurance proceeds and included payment terms and late-fee provisions.
Costello later signed a Certificate of Satisfaction authorizing payment to Imperial, which he also testified he did not read.
Imperial sought $669.86 in small claims court; Costello defended on the basis that the contract violated HICA.
The trial court ruled for Costello; the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for judgment in Imperial's favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HICA non-compliance renders the contract void or unenforceable against Costello.	Imperial argues non-compliance does not automatically void the contract.	Costello argues HICA non-compliance voids or unenforceable the contract against him.	Non-conforming contract not automatically void; enforceable after balancing factors.

Johnson v. Anderson, 590 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (contracts not void unless statute clear on unenforceability)
Continental Basketball Ass'n v. Ellenstein Enterprises, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (not all contracts violating statute are automatically void)
Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. 1995) (public policy factors in contract enforceability)
Ahuja v. Lynco Ltd. Med. Research, 675 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (balancing factors for public policy in contracts)
Hayes v. Chapman, 894 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (HICA protects consumers; strict standard for home improvements)
Crider & Crider, Inc. v. Downen, 873 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (windfall considerations when enforcing contracts under policy)