“Lending” a License in Indiana

Sharon Leibengood-Chavez wanted to add a sunroom and deck to her Cedar Lake, Indiana home. Filip Zivkovic of Ark Supplies, Inc. agreed to do the work. There was no written contract. Worse, Ark Supplies wasn’t registered to do construction in Cedar Lake. That meant Ark couldn’t apply for a building permit. No problem. Ark got Michael Vaidik of Castle Construction to apply for the permit. Castle had a license in Cedar Lake. Vaidik listed Castle as contractor on the job and certified his application as true and correct. But Ark did all the work.

Sharon, the owner, knew nothing about Castle’s role in her job. If that seems deceptive to you, I agree.

When finished, Ark’s work passed inspection. But Sharon wasn’t happy. She filed a complaint for damages against Ark – and Castle. Her attorney claimed both Castle and Ark violated Indiana’s Home Improvement Contractor Act (HICA) and Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA). Sharon claimed treble damages and attorney fees. The trial court granted Sharon’s request for a summary judgment. Arc and Castle appealed.

I should add, nothing in this case suggests Castle got paid for "lending" their license. Ark reimbursed Castle for cost of the permit. But that was all. I’m going to assume the loan was gratis, not part of a business deal. If Castle was paid to take out the permit, I believe that changes everything.

How would you decide this case?

Does “lending” a license make a contractor liable for defective work? Does “lending” a license give a contractor an interest in the job?

Not according to the May 29, 2026 opinion in Castle Construction Corp v. Leibengood Chavez. Writing for the majority, Judge Foley concluded that Castle was not a “supplier” under Indiana’s HICA. Because Castle was not a supplier under HICA, Castle could not be held liable as a supplier under the DCSA. The Court reversed the summary judgment and directed that judgment be entered in favor of Castle.

Even though identified as the “contractor” on the permit, Castle never contracted with Sharon, never communicated with her and never did any work on the job. Sharon was entirely unaware of Castle's involvement. On that basis, Castle should get a free pass under both HICA and DCSA, at least according to Judge Foley.

OK. Are we to understand? Indiana’s Home Improvement Contractor Act and Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act don’t apply if your role in the job is kept secret. Don’t solicit the job. Don’t sign anything. Don’t let the owner know what you’re doing. Think of the possibilities.

Is this what the Indiana Legislature intended when enacting HICA and DCSA? You decide.

I like the dissent by Chief Judge Tavitas. Castle became a “supplier” under HICA when Castle supplied the building permit. Without that, the project wasn’t going anywhere. If Castle was a supplier, Sharon was entitled to an award of damages and attorney fees.

I don’t recommend “loan” of a license. If you have little or no role on a job, don’t go on record as the contractor. In most counties and cities, any misrepresentation about who will do the work earns penalties. In Cedar Lake:

• A fine of $300 to $2,500 per violation per day.
• Stop‑work authority.
• Permit revocation.

One more point.

Every good construction project starts with a good contract. If Sharon had insisted on a written contract, that agreement would show the contractor’s name and license number. That would have saved Sharon thousands in legal fees and several years in Indiana courts. No matter the site, no matter the type of work, you won’t find a better contract drafting tool than Construction Contract Writer. The trial version is free.