A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning property.
Summary
HB 1390 would change Indiana’s eminent domain law in two main ways. First, it requires the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), when making an initial offer to purchase property for a project, to offer 125% of the property’s fair market value as determined by the required appraisal. This applies to offers made after June 30, 2026.
Second, the bill clarifies the rights of property owners whose property is damaged as a result of a public use. It amends the inverse condemnation statute to state that a person with an interest in property that has been acquired for public use or damaged by a public use without the required procedures is entitled to have damages assessed under the chapter. In practical terms, the bill strengthens compensation protections for property owners affected by government projects, especially transportation projects.
Impact
The bill would amend IC 32-24-1, Indiana’s eminent domain and inverse condemnation chapter, by adding a new requirement for INDOT’s original purchase offers and revising the statute governing claims for property damaged by public use. It would likely increase the amount initially offered by INDOT in acquisition negotiations and may expand or clarify access to inverse condemnation remedies for affected property owners. The bill is effective July 1, 2026.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a property-owner protection bill rather than a controversial procedural overhaul. Its stated purpose suggests support for stronger compensation in eminent domain cases, especially from landowners and others affected by public projects. No formal vote history or transcript indicates organized opposition or support in the available materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the higher upfront cost imposed on INDOT and, by extension, public infrastructure projects. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, leverage in negotiations, and better compensation for owners whose property is taken or damaged. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on increased project costs, budget impacts, and whether requiring 125% of fair market value could complicate acquisitions or delay transportation projects. The inverse condemnation language could also raise questions about the scope of claims for property damage caused by public use.