Indiana Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Church Premises Liability in Injury Case

The Indiana Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch, clarifying the scope of liability protections for nonprofit religious organizations when individuals sustain injuries on church property. The ruling strengthens protections for churches under Indiana Code § 34-31-7-2, which limits the duties a church owes to invitees on its premises. 

Gerard Kirsch, a longtime member and board member of Calvary Temple Church in Evansville, Indiana, was injured in 2019 while helping construct a storage barn on the church’s nearly five-acre property. While climbing a ladder to attach a metal sheet to the barn’s roof, Kirsch lost his balance and jumped from the ladder. Kirsch landed on the sharp edge of the metal sheet, causing a deep cut to his right arm that required surgery. Despite the procedure, he continued to experience numbness in his arm and hand.

Kirsch sued the church for his personal injuries, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe equipment, adequate supervision, and proper training. The church moved for summary judgment, arguing that Indiana Code § 34-31-7-2 limited its liability. Specifically, the church contended that it only had a duty to warn Kirsch of hidden dangers it knew about and to refrain from intentional harm—duties it claimed it had not breached.

Kirsch countered that the statutory limitation on church liability only applied to areas of the property “used primarily for worship services.” He argued that because the storage barn construction site was not an area used for worship, the church still owed him a general duty of reasonable care. The trial court agreed and denied summary judgment, but granted the church’s motion to certify its order for interlocutory appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found the statute ambiguous and in derogation of common law and, therefore construed it narrowly. It likewise held that the statute applied only to specific portions of a church’s property primarily used for worship. The appellate court reasoned those other areas of church-owned land, like the storage barn site, fell outside the statute’s scope, leaving churches liable for negligence claims in those areas. We previously wrote about the decision here.

The church sought transfer. Reversing the lower courts, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of Calvary Temple Church. The Court determined that the term “premises” in Indiana Code § 34-31-7-2 refers to an entire parcel of church-owned land, not just the portions specifically used for worship services. Because the statute applies to premises as a whole, the church was shielded from liability for Kirsch’s claim.

Because the statute did not define “premises,” the Court noted it was the Court’s responsibility to define the term in the plain, ordinary sense. Consulting the American-Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of premises, the Court concluded premises includes “any real property that one can enter,” whether improvements or the land itself. Thus, the Court explained that the law’s plain language supports a broad interpretation of “premises,” encompassing the full extent of church-owned property. The Court further noted that the legislative intent behind the statute was to limit a church’s exposure to premises liability, reinforcing that churches are only responsible for warning invitees of known hidden dangers and avoiding intentional harm.

This decision significantly limits the circumstances under which a church can be held liable for injuries on its property. Under the Court’s ruling churches are protected from general negligence claims so long as the injury occurs on property that is “owned, operated, or controlled” by the church and “used primarily for worship services.” Liability is limited to failure to warn of known hidden dangers and intentional harm, meaning individuals injured on church property face a high burden in pursuing a claim. And, finally, the definition of “premises” includes an entire parcel of land, rather than just buildings or areas specifically used for worship services.

For personal injury attorneys and claimants, this ruling reinforces the importance of evaluating whether it will be possible to prove that a church knew of a hidden danger and failed to warn, or that the injury resulted from intentional misconduct. General negligence claims against churches will now face significant hurdles. You can read the decision here.