author: FISHER, Senior Judge.

text:
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent.
    No. 49T10-0704-TA-24.
    Tax Court of Indiana.
    Sept. 16, 2013.
    Richard D. Birns, J. Edward Goff, Birns & Goff, Philadelphia, PA, Jeffrey S. Dible, Gene F. Price, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Louisville, KY, Attorneys for Petitioner.
    Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew W. Swain, Chief Counsel, Tax Section, Jessica E. Reagan, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Respondent.
   ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FISHER, Senior Judge.

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) challenges the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s denial of its refund claim for the 2000 tax year and its assessment of additional corporate income tax for the 2001 tax year (“the years at issue”). The matter, currently before the Court on UPS’s motion for summary judgment, presents two issues which the Court restates as: 1) whether foreign reinsurance companies must be physically present in Indiana to satisfy the statutory requirement of “doing business” under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2; and 2) if so, whether Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4), in providing an exemption from Indiana’s corporate income tax to foreign reinsurance companies that are “doing business” in Indiana under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Finding that physical presence is required and that the Commerce Clause challenge is improper, the Court grants summary judgment to the Department.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

UPS and its affiliates (“the affiliated group”), which include the foreign reinsurance companies of UPINSCO, Inc. and UPS Re Ltd., form the world’s largest package delivery company. Prior to 2001, UPS included the income of UPINSCO and UPS Re on the affiliated group’s Indiana corporate income tax returns. Because UPS filed the returns under the worldwide unitary combined method, it reported the affiliated group’s income, deductions, and credits on a combined basis. In 2001, however, UPS excluded the income of UPINSCO and UPS Re from the affiliated group’s Indiana return.. UPS also subsequently amended its 2000 Indiana return in order to exclude the income of UPINSCO and UPS Re from the return, thereby seeking a refund of $359,466 in income tax initially paid.

After auditing the affiliated group’s returns for the years at issue, the Department determined that UPS erred in excluding the income of UPINSCO and UPS Re from the returns. As a result, the Department denied UPS’s refund claim and assessed it with an additional income tax liability of $291,105 for 2001. UPS protested the Department’s denial of its refund claim and its issuance of the proposed assessment with no success.

In March 2010, after appealing to this Court, UPS moved for summary judgment, asserting that because UPINSCO and UPS Re were “subject to” Indiana’s gross premium privilege tax (premiums tax) under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2, their income was exempt from Indiana’s corporate income tax pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4). The Department filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, contending that because UPS failed to comply with several provisions of the premiums tax statutory scheme, UPINSCO and UPS Re were neither “subject to” the premiums tax nor exempt from Indiana’s corporate income tax.

On December 29, 2010, ■ in an unpublished decision, this Court granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that UPINSCO and UPS Re were exempt from Indiana corporate income tax because they were both “subject to” the premiums tax based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “subject to.” See United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0704-TA-24, slip op. at 6-7, 2010 WL 5549039 (Ind. Tax Ct. Dec. 29, 2010), rev’d on other grounds, 969 N.E.2d 596 (Ind.2012) (UPS I). On June 21, 2012, the Indiana Supreme- Court reversed this Court’s grant of summary judgment to UPS in UPS I, explaining:

The plain language of Indiana Code section 27-1-18-2 requires that all insurance companies — like UPINSCO and UPS Re — not “organized under the laws of this state” must, at the very least, show they are “doing business within this state” before the companies are entitled to an exemption from adjusted gross income [tax]. The very first sentence of the statute reads, “Every insurance company not organized under the laws of this state, ... and doing business within this state shall....”

Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 969 N.E.2d 596, 601 (Ind.2012) (UPS II) (citation omitted). After determining that the designated evidence failed to show whether UPINSCO and UPS Re were doing business within this state for purposes of Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2, the Indiana Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. See id. at 608.

On April 18, 2013, UPS once again moved for summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on August 16, 2013. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper only when the designated evidence demonstrates that no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C) (footnote added). Indiana Trial Rule 56(B) provides that “[w]hen any party has moved for summary judgment, the court may grant summary judgment for any other party upon the issues raised by the motion although no motion for summary judgment is filed by such party.” T.R. 56(B). When, as here, the material facts are undisputed and a litigant challenges the constitutionality of a statute, the issue presented is purely one of law for which summary judgment is particularly appropriate. See Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville, 907 N.E.2d 559, 564 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (citation omitted), tram, denied.

ANALYSIS

During the years at issue, Indiana imposed an income tax on the part of every corporation’s adjusted gross income that was derived from sources within Indiana. See Ind.Code § 6-3-2-l(b) (2000) (amended 2002). Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4), however, provided certain entities with an exemption from that tax: “there shall be no tax on the adjusted gross income of ... [i]nsurance companies subject to tax under IC 27-1-18-2.” Ind.Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4) (2000) (amended 2002). In turn, Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2, in relevant part, provided:

(a) Every insurance company not organized under the laws of this state ... and doing business within this state shall, on or before March 1 of each year, report to the department [of insurance], under the oath of the president and secretary, the gross amount of all premiums received by it on policies of insurance covering risks within this state, or in the case of marine or transportation risks, on policies made, written, or renewed within this state during the twelve (12) month period ending on December 31 of the preceding calendar year. From the amount of gross premiums described in this subsection shall be deducted ... considerations received for reinsurance of risks within this state from companies authorized to transact an insurance business in this state[.]
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
(c)(1) For the privilege of doing business in this state, every insurance company required to file the report provided in this section shall pay into the treasury of this state an amount equal to [two. percent (2%)] of the excess, if any, of the gross premiums over the allowable deductions!.]

Ind.Code § 27-1-18-2(a), (c)(1) (2000) (amended 2001).

Physical Presence

In its motion for summary judgment, UPS claims that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in UPS II essentially requires foreign reinsurers to be physically present within this state in order to be “doing business” under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2 and to qualify for the corporate income tax exemption provided under Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4). (See Hr’g Tr. at 4-6, Aug. 16, 2013; Pet’r Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 6, Apr. 18, 2013; Pet’r Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Pet’r Br.”) at 9, Apr. 18, 2013.) According to UPS, that determination creates tension between Indiana’s premiums tax and its corporate income tax because UPS contends the latter utilizes an economic presence standard, not a physical presence standard. (See Hr’g Tr. at 6-8 (referring to MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. & Affiliates v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 895 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. Tax Ct.2008).) The Department, however, maintains that UPS has misconstrued both UPS II and Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2 because neither of those authorities makes any mention of physical presence whatsoever. (See Hr’g Tr. at 9-12.)

At the outset, and contrary to UPS’s claim, there is no tension between Indiana’s premiums tax and its corporate income tax because each utilizes a physical presence standard. Thus, to the extent UPS believes this Court’s decision in MBNA held that Indiana’s corporate income tax utilized an economic presence standard, it is incorrect. See MBNA, 895 N.E.2d at 141-44 (holding that the statutory economic presence basis for imposing Indiana’s financial institutions tax (“the FIT”) did not violate the substantial nexus requirement of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution).

Furthermore, while this Court has found that an economic presence rather than a physical presence is a sufficient basis for imposition of the FIT, it cannot reach the same conclusion regarding Indiana’s premiums tax for three main reasons. First, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that a physical presence standard applies for purposes of a premiums tax:

the limits of [a] state’s legislative jurisdiction to tax, [as] prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be ascertained by reference to the incidence of the tax upon its objects rather than the ultimate thrust of the economic benefits and burdens of transactions within the state.

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 80, 58 S.Ct. 436, 82 L.Ed. 673 (1938). See also State Bd. Ins. v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 370 U.S. 451, 452-56, 82 S.Ct. 1380, 8 L.Ed.2d 620 (1962) (reaffirming Johnson nearly twenty years later). Second, this Court’s review of Indiana case law and the case law of other jurisdictions reveals decades of uniformity — wherein state courts have routinely declined to impose a premiums tax when foreign insurers/reinsurers lacked a physical presence in the taxing state. See UPS II, 969 N.E.2d at 601-03 (remanding the case because the record evidence did not reveal whether UPINSCO’s and UPS Re’s reinsurance transactions took place in Indiana); State ex rel. Crittenberger v. Continental Ins. Co. of N.Y., 67 Ind.App. 536, 116 N.E. 929, 934-35 (1917) (explaining that a foreign reinsurer did not owe Indiana’s premiums tax because it conducted its reinsurance transactions in Illinois, not Indiana).

Finally, neither of the parties has presented a fully developed argument regarding the adoption of an economic presence standard for Indiana’s premiums tax. For instance, UPS has encouraged the Court to avoid the issue altogether, arguing that such a finding is unnecessary given its Commerce Clause claim, that the finding would likely conflict with UPS II and Continental Insurance, and that the finding could have far-reaching, unintended effects in the insurance industry. (See Hr’g Tr. at 7-9.) In contrast, the Department has argued that UPS II provides that a foreign reinsurer need only show that it has a certificate of authority to satisfy the “doing business” requirement of Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2. (See Hr’g Tr. at 13-16; Resp’t Resp. Pet’r Mot. Summ. J. at 6-9, May 28, 2013.) Nonetheless, while the Indiana Supreme Court mentioned the necessity of obtaining a certificate of authority in UPS II, it did so only in a general discussion of the statutory scheme regarding the business of insurance. See UPS II, 969 N.E.2d at 601. That discussion does not indicate that possessing a certificate of authority means a foreign reinsurer is physically present in Indiana; instead, it indicates that a foreign reinsurer must obtain such a certificate to legitimately engage in the reinsurance business in Indiana. See id. The plain language of Indiana Code § 27-1-17-8 supports this conclusion as it provides that a certificate of authority “shall license [a] foreign or alien insurance|7reinsurance] company to transact only the kind or kinds of insurance specified in its application for admission[.]” Ind.Code § 27-1-17-8 (2013) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Court concludes that foreign reinsur-ers must be physically present in Indiana to satisfy the statutory requirement of “doing business” under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2.

The Commerce Clause

With respect to its Commerce Clause challenge, UPS contends that because the physical presence requirement under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2 provides a direct competitive advantage to all reinsurance companies conducting business within Indiana over foreign reinsurers like UPINSCO and UPS Re that did not conduct business in Indiana during the years at issue, it violates the Commerce Clause. (See Pet’r Br. at 4, 9-10, 14.) More specifically, UPS explains that foreign reinsur-ers conducting business in Indiana would generally have a lower tax liability than foreign reinsurers conducting business elsewhere because the latter would be subject to Indiana’s corporate income tax. (See Pet’r Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 2, June 21, 2013.)

The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power “[to] regulate Commerce ... among the several States[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. While the Clause is “ ‘silent as to how much economic regulatory power a state retains, it has been applied to prevent states from discriminating against out-of-state economic interests or from benefiting in-state interests.’ ” Rhoade v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 774 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind. Tax Ct.2002) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the view that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation. Id. (citation omitted).

Prior to 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently held that the business of insurance was not “commerce” for purposes of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 183-84, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L.Ed. 357 (1868), overruled in part by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S.Ct. 1162, 88 L.Ed. 1440 (1944). As a result, insurance transactions were not subject to federal regulation as interstate commerce. See Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408, 414-17, 66 S.Ct. 1142, 90 L.Ed. 1342 (1946); Legal Asset Funding, LLC v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 155 F.Supp.2d 90, 96 (D.N.J.2001).

In 1944, however, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the business of insurance was commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533, 552-53, 64 S.Ct. 1162, 88 L.Ed. 1440 (1944). The following year, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the relevant parts provide:

Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.
The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.
No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance.

15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1011, 1012. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that the obvious purpose of the Act was “to give support to the existing and future state systems for regulating and taxing the business of insurance.” Prudential, 328 U.S. at 429, 66 S.Ct. 1142. The Supreme Court further explained the Act “put the full weight of [Congress’] power behind existing and future state legislation to sustain it from-any attack under the commerce clause to whatever extent this may be done with the force of that power behind it, subject only to the exceptions expressly provided for.” Id. at 431, 66 S.Ct. 1142. In other words, Congress, through its enactment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, once again protected insurance transactions from commerce clause challenges. See Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 451 U.S. 648, 652-56, 101 S.Ct. 2070, 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981) (footnote added). See also, e.g., In re Workers’Comp. Ins. Antitrust Litig., 574 F.Supp. 525, 527-28 (D.Minn.1983); City of Charleston v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 334 S.C. 67, 512 S.E.2d 504, 506-07 (1999).

Given the plain language, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation, of the McCarran-Ferguson Act it is difficult to surmise how the statutes at issue here do not fall within its scope. Indeed, nearly a century ago, the Indiana Court of Appeals explained that the predecessor to Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2 was a graduated privilege tax, designed to raise revenue and “imposed upon a foreign [insurance or reinsurance] corporation for the privilege of exercising its corporate franchises and carrying on business in a corporate capacity within the state.” Continental Ins., 116 N.E. at 933. See also UPS II, 969 N.E.2d at 597-98 (stating that the “premiums tax works like an excise tax permitting a foreign reinsurer to do business in the state” (citation omitted)). Moreover, Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.8(4) merely exempts foreign reinsurance corporations that conduct business within Indiana from the corporate income tax because they are “subject to” the premiums tax under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2. See I.C. § 6-3-2-2.8(4). These statutes, therefore, plainly concern the regulation and taxation of insurance and are immune from Commerce Clause challenges.

ORDER

For the above-stated reasons, UPS’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and summary judgment is GRANTED to the Department.

SO ORDERED.

      . Although the Department did not file a cross-motion for summary judgment, its response states it is entitled to summary judgment and it has designated evidence in support. (See Resp’t Resp. Pet’r Mot. Summ. J. at 6-13, May 28, 2013; Resp’t Des’g Evid., May 28, 2013.)

      . The 2001 amendment of Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2 has no bearing on the outcome of this matter.

      . See also In re Continental Cas. Co., 189 Iowa 933, 179 N.W. 185, 188-89 (1920) (declining to find that foreign insurance companies were doing business within Iowa for purposes of its premiums tax when the reinsurance contracts were executed out-of-state and the premiums and losses were payable out-of-state); Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 196 Miss. 82, 16 So.2d 369, 369-72 (1944) (holding that an entity’s reinsurance premiums were not subject to Mississippi’s income tax when the policies were negotiated and executed out-of-state); People ex rel. Sea Ins. Co. v. Graves, 274 N.Y. 312, 8 N.E.2d 872, 873-75 (1937) (concluding that an entity was not conducting a marine reinsurance business subject to New York's premiums tax when the reinsurance policies were executed out-of-state and the premiums were paid out-of-state); J.B. Glen, Annotation, What constitutes doing business within state by foreign insurance corporations, 137 A.L.R. 1128 (1942); 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 125 ("Ordinarily a reinsurance transaction constitutes doing business in the state wherein such contract is consummated”).

      . The business of insurance, however, is vulnerable to other constitutional challenges. See Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 82, 58 S.Ct. 436, 82 L.Ed. 673 (1938) (holding that a California premiums tax statute designed to tax foreign reinsurers that did not conduct reinsurance business in that state violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution); State Bd. of Ins. v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 370 U.S. 451, 455-57, 82 S.Ct. 1380, 8 L.Ed.2d 620 (1962) (explaining that Congress never intended to displace the Johnson decision, among others, through its enactment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act). Cf. also, e.g.. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 451 U.S. 648, 654-74, 101 S.Ct. 2070, 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981) (concluding that California’s retaliatory tax, which was only imposed on certain foreign reinsurers, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution) with Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 874-83, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84 L.Ed.2d 751 (1985) (concluding that Alabama, in imposing a substantially lower gross premiums tax rate on foreign insurers than domestic insurers, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution). UPS, however, has not raised any such constitutional challenges during the course of these proceedings. (See Pet’r Pet., Apr. 20, 2007; Pet’r Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 17-18, Mar. 12, 2010; Pet'r Resp. Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 5-6, Apr. 30, 2010; Pet’r Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 6-7, Apr. 18, 2013).

      . While some courts have noted that the business of insurance and reinsurance differ, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained that "[Reinsurance is a type of 'insurance for insurers.’ ” See Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 969 N.E.2d 596, 598 (Ind.2012) (UPS II). The fact that reinsurance contracts are often considered indemnity contracts rather than insurance contracts is, therefore, irrelevant in this case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: NAJAM, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Billy L. MUSGRAVE, Jr., and Kim A. Musgrave, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. The ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. and Alcoa Fuels, Inc., Appellees-Defendants.
    No. 87A04-1205-CT-276.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Aug. 6, 2013.

      Peter M. Racher, Theresa M. Willard, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.
    Mark David Gerth, Brent R. Weil, Kightlinger & Gray LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Thomas E. Birsic, Michael J.R. Schalk, Andrew R. Stanton, Gregory T. Sturges, K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Rene P. Tatro, Tatro Tekosky Sadwiek LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Appellees.
   OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 2006, Bil and Kim Musgrave filed suit against The Aluminum Company of America, Inc. (“Alcoa”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Alcoa Fuels, Inc. (“Alcoa Fuels”). According to their complaint, Bil had been exposed to Alcoa’s toxic chemicals both in the course of his work on land owned by Alcoa Fuels and his recreational use of that land, which caused Bil to develop a rare form of cancer. Before trial, the court dismissed the Musgraves’ work-related claims pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Following a trial on the Mus-graves’ recreational claims, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels.

On appeal, the Musgraves raise three issues for our review, but we need only address the following two dispositive issues :

1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Musgraves’ work-related claims.
2. Whether the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the statute of limitations on the Musgraves’ claims that them injuries resulted from their recreational exposure to Alcoa’s chemicals.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the 1960s and 1970s, Alcoa dumped industrial waste at the Squaw Creek Mine (“Squaw Creek”), which is about fifteen miles from Alcoa’s smelting plant on the Ohio River. Squaw Creek is a surface coal mine near Boonville in Warrick County and is owned by Alcoa Fuels. Some of this waste included polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”).

In January of 1960, Alcoa entered into a “Joint Venture Agreement” (“the JVA”) with Peabody Coal Company (“Peabody”). Appellants’ App. at 752. Pursuant to the JVA, “[t]he name of this Joint Venture is: Squaw Creek Coal Company” (“SCCC”). Id. SCCC mined coal from Squaw Creek at least in part to power Alcoa’s aluminum smelting plant on the Ohio River.

The JVA described its purpose as well as Peabody’s and Alcoa’s responsibilities as follows:

Section 1.3. Pwposes. The purposes of the Joint Venture are:
(1) To develop and conduct coal mining operations on lands now or hereafter leased or owned by [SCCC] in Warrick, Vanderburgh, Spencer and Gibson Counties, Indiana, and to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, all of the necessary machinery, equipment and facilities;
(2) To engage in the business of mining, processing, selling and delivering coal from such lands;
(3) To carry on any other activities necessary or incidental to the foregoing.
[SCCC] shall not engage in any other business or activity without the written agreement of the parties.
Section 2.2. Responsibilities of Peabody.
(a) Peabody, with its own employees (who shall not thereby become [SCCC] employees) and at its own cost and expense, shall be responsible for:
(1) All administration, general supervision, management and technical assistance;
(2) All of the purchasing (except purchases which Alcoa has advised, Peabody in advance can, in Alcoa’s opinion, be made more advantageously by Alcoa);
(3) Keeping all books and records and doing all accounting work; and
(4) Furnishing all general engineering.
(b) Peabody shall carry out its responsibilities listed above in such a manner as to provide efficient and economical planning, construction, development and conducting of the mining operations, equal in all respects to the like services performed by Peabody’s general offices for the mines owned by it or its subsidiaries.
(c) [SCCC] shall pay Peabody each month, as an allowance for Peabody’s costs and expenses incurred in carrying out its responsibilities listed above, an amount equal to 2.939% of [the] gross invoiced sales price for coal mined and sold by [SCCC].
(d) In the event that, after initial delivery of coal by [SCCC], deliveries of coal by [SCCC] are suspended for, any period in excess of sixty days, [SCCC] shall pay Peabody the reasonable costs incurred by Peabody in performing any of the services listed in paragraph (a) of this Section 2.2 reasonably required to be performed during such period, together with any reasonable costs incurred by Peabody with its own employees, with the consent of Alcoa, in maintaining [SCCC’s] mine in a standby status during such period.
Section 2.3. Responsibilities of Alcoa.
(a) Alcoa shall cause to be leased to [SCCC], on such terms as shall be mutually agreed, all coal reserves heretofore or hereafter acquired by Alcoa or any of its subsidiaries from Peabody or any of its subsidiaries in Warrick, Vander-burgh, Spencer and Gibson Counties, Indiana.
(b) Alcoa shall lease or cause to be leased to [SCCC], on such terms as shall be mutually agreed, or shall make funds available to [SCCC] without interest whereby it may aequire[ ] all sueh equipment, machinery and facilities as shall be reasonably necessary for the proper and efficient mining (including transportation within Warrick County) by [SCCC] of its coal reserves in such manner as to fulfill its commitments for the sale of coal therefrom. If Alcoa shall advance funds for the acquisition of such equipment, machinery and facilities, this Agreement shall be appropriately amended to provide for the repayment of such funds, the accounting for such assets and for the allocation of any profits or losses arising from the sale or other disposition thereof, all in such manner as shall recognize that such assets were acquired from funds advanced by Alcoa. ■

Id. at 752-55 (emphasis added). The JVA described SCCC’s management as follows:

(a) Subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, Peabody shall manage and be in full charge of the design, construction and completion of the mining operations, the preparation of all plans, specifications, estimates and schedules, the selection and purchase or lease of all machines, equipment of all personnel required to carry on [SCCC’s] business. Peabody shall also manage and be in full charge of all other business affairs of [SCCC]. Peabody shall perform its responsibilities under this [JVA] in a good and sufficient manner in accordance with sound mining practices. Failure so to do shall be deemed a failure by Peabody to perform its obligations hereunder.
(b) Peabody shall be subject to the following limitations:
(1) Plans for the design and construction of any mine or related facilities, including but not limited to preparation •plants, and all contracts for the purchase, lease or construction of machinery, equipment, buildings and other facilities shall be approved by Alcoa before any commitment is made by [SCCC] with respect thereto;
(2) Peabody shall not mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber any property or assets-owned or used by [SCCC], or confess any judgment against [SCCC], without the consent of Alcoa;
(3) No sale or agreement for the' sale of coal shall be made without the written agreement of Alcoa and Peabody; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not prevent [SCCC] from disposing of coal rejected by any customer or from making ■ sales of coal at the mine to [SCCC] employees and their families for their own consumption;
(4) Peabody shall secure Alcoa’s written approval before taking any steps resulting in any. substantial change in the operation or policies of [SCCC’s] affairs or business;
(5) The mine superintendent or other person in charge of mining operations shall be selected by Peabody, but if he or any successor is not satisfactory to Alcoa, he shall, at Alcoa’s request, be replaced by Peabody;
(6) Alcoa shall have the right to designate all elections to be made by or for [SCCC] under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ..., provided, however, that no such election shall be made by Alcoa without prior consultation with respect thereto with Peabody. Id. at 755-56. Finally, -the .JVA stated that “[SCCC’s] annual net income or loss ... shall be divided between the parties as follows: Alcoa 60%[;] Peabody 40%.” Id. at 757.

From the time that Bil was at least ten years old, parts of Squaw Creek were open to the public for recreation. Bil and, later, his wife Kim spent hundreds- of hours over the years in recreational pursuits there. In 1977, Bil was a member of the United Mine Workers of America labor union (“the Union”), and he worked at Squaw Creek. Bil helped bury industrial waste at Squaw Creek and worked at the mine through 2000, when the mining operations ceased.

In 1996, Alcoa and Peabody entered into a Restated Joint Venture Agreement (“the RJVA”) for the purposes of eventually terminating the Alcoa-Peabody relationship. The RJVA described Peabody’s revised responsibilities in relevant part as follows:

(e) After January 1, 1996, Peabody shall be solely responsible for the development of and shall be liable for all costs of exploring, developing and mining of the North 400 Area [of Squaw Creek], including Post-Mining Costs defined below, and Alcoa shall have no liability for any costs associated with the North 400 Area. As used herein, “Post-Mining Costs” shall include all costs necessary to have reclamation bonds released from the North 400 Area and the Non-North 400 Area related to the disturbances attributable to [SCCC’s] exploration, development and mining operations associated with the North 400 Area. Peabody shall indemnify and hold [SCCC] and Alcoa harmless with respect to all costs and liability relating to mining the North 400 Area. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, said liabilities do not include the liabilities, identified in Section 2.8(c) with respect to [Union] represented employees who work in the North 400 Area.... During the period in which [SCCC] mines the North 400 Area, the actual out-of-pocket costs paid by [SCCC] relating to [SCCC’s] retiree health care benefit costs for retiree health care benefit services shall be borne by Peabody.
(f) The parties anticipate that deliveries of coal from the North 400 Area will commence on or about August 1, 1996 [ (“the Transfer Date”) ].... ,On the Transfer Date, Peabody shall assume liability for the retiree health care benefit costs for retiree health care benefit services received by the present and former salaried employees of Peabody located at [Squaw Creek]. Peabody shall assume liability for all applicable severance payments due salaried employees of Peabody located at [Squaw Creek] as of January 31, 1996[,] and all workers’ compensation, occupational disease and black lung liabilities for such employees as of the Transfer Date....
(g) ... Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Peabody shall ... manage the final reclamation and mine closing activities for the Non-North 400 Area and the administration of [SCCC’s] retiree health care benefits, severance, workers’ compensation, occupational disease and black lung obligations to current and former [Union] represented employees of [SCCC]....

Id. at 892-95. And, in Section 2.3, the RJYA described Alcoa’s revised responsibilities as follows:

(c) Except for liabilities and the out-of-pocket retiree health care benefit costs associated with the North JpOO Area as provided in [Peabody’s responsibilities] ..., Alcoa will be responsible and assume all liability for (1) retiree health care benefits of [SCCC’s] past . and present work force represented by the [Union]; (2) all costs associated with severance payments to [the Union] represented employees after the date of this Amendment; (3) all the liability under present and future laws and labor agreements affecting the past and present work force represented by the [Union], including workers’ compensation, occupational disease and black lung liabilities; (4) all costs associated with obligations under [numerous Union documents]; and (5) all costs associated with the final reclamation and mine closing expenses with respect to the lands mined by [SCCC].... Alcoa ... will indemnify and hold Peabody and [SCCC] harmless with respect to all costs and liability arising under this Section 2.3(c).
(d) ... At any time after the completion of final reclamation of the North 400 Area, Alcoa may, at its sole option, retain an independent third party to manage [SCCC’s] retiree health care benefits, severance, workers’ compensation, occupational disease and/or black lung programs and, in such event, Peabody shall no longer be responsible for any matters relating thereto....

Id. at 896-97 (emphases added).

Although Bil and other Union-represented miners at Squaw Creek would later provide affidavits in which they stated that they were employed by Peabody, Bil’s Social Security Administration Form 1826, Itemized Statement of Earnings, reflects his employer as “Squaw Creek Coal Co.” between 1977 and 2000. Id. at 1053-54. W-2s of other miners at Squaw Creek likewise name their employer as SCCC. See, e.g., id. at 1043-50. SCCC’s annual budget included line items for “Represented Wages & Fringes” and payments for “Workmen’s Comp.” See, e.g., id. at 1098 (SCCC’s 1986 budget). Those costs, among others, were used to determine SCCC’s net profit or loss in a given year.

In September of 2000 Bil was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare form of cancer affecting the bile ducts and liver. Within a month of his diagnosis, Bil self-reported to his doctors that he may have suffered an “[occupational hazard.” Pis. Exh. M223, Transcript Vol. 19. On March 5, 2001, Bil sent a letter to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) asking the DNR to “send all information you may have” in regard to environmental contamination at Squaw Creek. Defs. Exh. A231, Transcript Vol. 21. DNR mailed that information to Bil on March 19, 2001, and in its ietter DNR advised Bil to seek further information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”). Defs. Éxh. A229, Transcript Vol. 21. In August of 2001 Bil received a life-saving liver transplant at the Mayo Clinic.

In April of 2003, Kim wrote to Senator Richard Lugar and other officials. According to her letter, she had learned from the EPA’s website that “there were 70 MILLION GALLONS of toxic substances dumped over a period of many years” at Squaw' Creek. Defs. Exh. A226, Transcript Vol. 21 (emphasis original). Kim further expressed concern that Bil’s rare form of cancer may have been contracted from his work at Squaw Creek, and she asked Senator Lugar to “have the Director of the EPA review” various other sites at Squaw Creek. Id. In August of 2003, Don Mottley, a local environmental activist who had been in contact with the Musgraves, likewise wrote to Senator Lugar, with a copy sent to Kim, asserting that many of the chemicals dumped at Squaw Creek were known or suspected carcinogens. Defs. Exh. A230, Transcript Vol. 21. Regarding PAHs, Mottley stated that “[s]tud-ies of people show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods to mixtures that contain PAHs ... can also develop cancer.” Id. Mottley expressly based his conclusions in part on the “Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals” (“Toxic Chemicals Handbook”). Id.

About four months after Mottley’s letter, on December 19, 2003, Bil handwrote the following letter: “Gerald[:] INFO for your review. What is the time line for Dr. Dahlgren’s involvement?” Defs. Exh. A307, Transcript Vol. 21. Although Bil later admitted at trial that he had written that letter, he testified that he had “no idea who Gerald [wa]s.” Transcript at 1092. Bil further testified that, while a certain Dr. Dahlgren was the Musgraves’ only expert witness on medical causation at their trial, Bil did not know “one way or another if that’s who [he was] referring to in December of 2003.” Id. at 1093.

Attached to Bil’s letter were annotated excerpts from the Toxic Chemicals Handbook. See Defs. Exh. A308, Transcript Vol. 21. The annotations were in Bil’s handwriting and called Gerald’s attention to various chemicals that were known to attack the liver and bile functions in humans. Those emphasized chemicals were each identified in Mottley’s August 2003 letter as chemicals known to be present at Squaw Creek and included certain PAHs.

Meanwhile, the Union attempted to have Alcoa describe what had been dumped at Squaw Creek. In August of 2004, Alcoa released that information. In “October 2005,” Bil' took that information to Dr. Gregory Gores, who had performed Bil’s 2001 liver transplant and with whom Bil had annual follow-up exams. Appellants’ App. at 282. According to Bil’s subsequent affidavit, ■ it was at this time that “Dr. Gores informed me that there are chemicals that could have caused my cancer. ...” Id. However, on October 3, 2005, Dr. Gores wrote a letter to Bil’s attorneys, in response to their inquiries, in which he stated that he was “not aware of any convincing data in man that any of these chemicals increase the risk” of contracting Bil’s form of cancer. Defs. Exh. at A541, Transcript Vol. 22.

On January 6, 2006, the Musgraves filed their complaint against Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Alcoa”), in which the Mus-graves alleged personal injury and emotional distress as a result of Bil’s work-related exposure and Bil and Kim’s recreational exposure. to the chemicals Alcoa had dumped at Squaw Creek. Alcoa moved to dismiss the Musgraves’ claims for injuries arising out of his employment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1). Specifically, Alcoa asserted that the Mus-graves’ occupational claims fell under Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act and/or the Occupational Diseases Act and that, since the Musgraves did not properly pursue claims under either of those Acts, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider them. The trial court granted Alcoa’s motion and limited the Musgraves’ claims at trial to whether their recreational exposure to chemicals at Squaw Creek caused their injuries. - '

In April and May of 2012, the court held a three-week jury trial on the Musgraves’ recreational claims. Following the trial) the court instructed the jury as follows:

Alcoa claims that the Musgrave[s’] claims are barred by what the law calls the statute of limitations. A statute of limitations provides a date by which a lawsuit must be filed, or else the claim is barred, and cannot be pursued by a plaintiff. The limitation on this case is two years. On the statute of limitations issue, Alcoa has the burden of proof.
The two[-]year statute of limitations begins to run from the date the Plaintiff knew or should have discovered that he suffered an injury that was caused by an act of the Defendant[s]. This clearly would oecur[ ] if and when[ ] the Plaintiffs doctoy informed the Plaintiff that there was a reasonable possibility if not probability that the Plaintiffs injury was caused by an act of the Defendant. Events short of a doctor’s diagnosis can provide a plaintiff with evidence of a reasonable possibility that another’s act caused his injuries. A Plaintiffs mere suspicions or. speculation would not be enough to trigger the statute of limitations.
The complaint in this case was filed on January 6, 2006. If you find that Alcoa has proven by the greater weight of the evidence that, before January 6, 2004, the Musgraves knew or should have discovered that they suffered an injury as a result of the Defendants’ actions, then you must enter a verdict in favor of the Defendants....

Instruction No. 25, Transcript Vol. 25. The Musgraves objected to the wording of Instruction No. 25 and proffered an alternative instruction, which would have stated that “the statute of limitations is triggered when a medical professional informs the plaintiff that there is a reasonable possibility if not probability that his injuries were caused by the defendant[s’] act or product....” Transcript at 3349. The trial court overruled the Musgraves’ objection and proffered instruction.

On May 1, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Alcoa. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Issue One: Bil’s Work-Related Claims and the Worker’s Compensation Act

Overview

We first address whether the trial court properly dismissed the Musgraves’ work-related claims against Alcoa. Although the parties discuss nine subissues here, we need only address the following three su-bissues : (1) whether Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture; (2) if so, whether Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act (“the Act”) grants the members of a joint venture immunity as a matter of law ; and (3) whether Bil was an employee of SCCC or Peabody. Each of these three subissues arises from the trial court’s pretrial dismissal of the Musgraves’ occupational claims under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court’s judgment was based on a paper record and, as such, our standard of review is de novo. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.2001).

Whether Alcoa and Peabody were Engaged in a Joint Venture

Whether Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture is a threshold question and is based on their contractual relationship. As we have explained:

When Indiana courts are called upon to interpret a contract, we apply the four-corners rule, which requires that[,] as to any matter expressly covered in the written contract, the provisions therein, if unambiguous, determine the terms of the contract. Words used in a contract are to be given their usual and common meaning unless, from the contract and the subject matter thereof, it is clear that some other meaning was intended.
We interpret a written contract by reading the contract as a whole, and we attempt to construe the language so as to not render any words, phrases, or terms ineffective or meaningless. Thus, we must accept an interpretation of the contract which harmonizes its provisions. If the language of the contract is unambiguous and the intent of the parties is discernible from the written contract, the court must give effect to the terms of the contract. And, in reading the terms of a contract together, we keep in mind that the more specific terms control over any inconsistent general statements. Finally, whether a joint venture exists is generally a question of fact. However, where that question can be resolved by looking only to undisputed facts or an unambiguous contract, the existence of a joint venture is a question of law....

DLZ Ind., LLC v. Greene County, 902 N.E.2d 323, 327-28 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (citations omitted).

A party’s characterization of an association as a joint venture is not, standing alone, conclusive proof of a joint venture. Id. at 329. Rather, “we must look beyond labels to the substance of the underlying relationship....” Id. In Walker v. Martin, 887 N.E.2d 125, 138 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied, we stated the standard for determining whether a joint venture exists:

A joint venture has been defined as an association of two or more persons formed to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. For a joint venture to exist, the parties must be bound by an express or implied contract providing for (1) a community of interests, and (2) joint or mutual control, that is, an equal right to direct and govern the undertaking, that binds the parties to such an agreement. A joint venture is similar to a partnership except that a joint venture contemplates only a single transaction. A joint venture agreement must also provide for the sharing of profits.

(Citations omitted.) Further:

Indiana courts have consistently preserved the commercial flavor of the joint venture concept, defining it as “an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit.” Beck v. Indiana Surveying Co., (1981) Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 264, 268; Baker v. Billingsley, (1956) 126 Ind.App. 703, 708, 132 N.E.2d 273, 275-76, trans. denied; 17 I.L.E. Joint Adventures § 1, 51 (1959).... [I]n the seminal Indiana case on joint venture, Baker v. Billingsley, it was established that ... an agreement to share profits is necessary and that “a right of mutual control over the subject matter of the enterprise or over the property engaged therein is essential to a joint adventure..” 126 Ind.App. at 708, 132 N.E.2d at 276.

Lafayette Bank & Trust Co. v. Price, 440 N.E.2d 759, 762 (Ind.Ct.App.1982). “As in a partnership, the parties to a joint venture are jointly and severally liable.” DLZ, 902 N.E.2d at 330.

In January 1960, Alcoa entered into the JVA with Peabody. Pursuant to the JVA, “[t]he name of this Joint Venture is: Squaw Creek Coal Company.” Appellants’ App. at 752. Section 1.3 stated the purpose of the JVA, namely, to mine Squaw Creek. And Section 4.1(a) provided that “SCCC’s annual net income or loss ... shall be divided between the parties as follows: Alcoa 60%[;] Peabody 40%.” Id. at 757. Again, “[a]n agreement to share the risk and the reward of the [alleged joint venture] is an essential ingredient and condition precedent to shared profits.” DLZ, 902 N.E.2d at 331. Moreover, SCCC’s net profits in a given year were less payments made for worker’s compensation insurance. See, e.g., Appellants’ App. at 1098.

Further, both Alcoa and Peabody had “an equal right to direct and govern the undertaking, that binds the parties to [their] agreement.” See Walker, 887 N.E.2d at 138. In Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the JVA described the responsibilities of both Peabody and Alcoa, respectively. Pursuant to Section 2.2, Peabody’s responsibilities included administration, general supervision, management and technical assistance, purchasing, keeping all books, records, and accounting, and furnishing general engineering. Appellants’ App. at 754. Pursuant to Section 2.3, Alcoa’s responsibilities included leasing all equipment, machinery, facilities, and coal reserves from Alcoa Fuels to SCCC. Id. at 754-55.

The JVA required that Alcoa and Peabody agree on several aspects of SCCC’s management. For example, Section 2.4 of the JVA states:

(b) Peabody shall be subject to the following limitations:
(1)Plans for the design and construction of any mine or related facilities, including but not limited to preparation plants, and all contracts for the purchase, lease or construction of machinery, equipment, buildings and other facilities shall be approved by Alcoa before any commitment is made by [SCCC] with respect thereto;
(2) Peabody shall not mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber any property or assets owned or used by [SCCC], or confess any judgment against [SCCC], without the consent of Alcoa;
(3) No sale or agreement for the sale of coal shall be made without the written agreement of Alcoa and Peabody; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not prevent [SCCC] from disposing of coal rejected by any customer or from making sales of coal at the mine to [SCCC] employees and their families for their own consumption;
(4) Peabody shall secure Alcoa’s written approval before taking any steps resulting in any substantial change in the operation or policies of [SCCC’s] affairs or business;
(5) The mine superintendent or other person in charge of mining operations shall be selected by Peabody, but if he or any successor is not satisfactory to Alcoa, he shall, at Alcoa’s request be replaced by Peabody;
(6) Alcoa shall have the right to designate all elections to be made by or for [SCCC] under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ..., provided, however, that no such election shall be made by Alcoa without prior consultation with respect thereto with Peabody.

Id. at 755-56 (emphases added).

In sum, the JVA is unambiguous on the intent of Alcoa and Peabody to form a joint venture. The JVA explicitly provides for shared risk, shared profits, and shared rights of mutual control. Thus, Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture, through SCCC, to mine Squaw Creek. Whether the Act Grants Joint Venture

Members Immunity as a Matter of Law

Having established that Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture, we next consider whether the Act grants the joint venture and its members immunity as a matter of law from a civil action in tort by employees of the joint venture.

A question of statutory interpretation is a matter of law. In such interpretation, the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory interpretation apply. We will examine the statute as a whole, and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or the selective reading of words. Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous there is nothing to construe. However, where the language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the statute must be construed .to give effect to the legislature’s intent. The legislature is presumed to have intended the language used in the statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an absurd or unjust result. Thus, we must keep in mind the objective and purpose of the law as well as the effect and repercussions of such a construction.

A.J. v. Logansport State Hosp. 956 N.E.2d 96, 104-05 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quotations omitted).

Indiana law is clear that “[t]he rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to [the Act] on account of personal injury or death .... shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee ... at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death.... ” Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6. As we have explained:

Exclusivity works a compromise — persons injured at work can expect compenT sation regardless of fault, and therefore free of the complexities and delay of legal process, although perhaps less than might be recovered in a jury verdict, whereas employers agree to pay compensation even where they bear no fault for the injury, in exchange for freedom from the expense of litigation and the possibility of large jury awards to injured employees, yielding an improved ability to predict the costs of workplace injuries.

Greene v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 573 N.E.2d 452, 453 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied. The Act defines an “employer” as:

“Employer’’ includes the state and any political subdivision, any municipal corporation within the state, any individual or the legal representative of a deceased individual, firm, association, limited liability company, or corporation or the receiver or trustee of 'the same, using the services of another for pay.' A parent corporation and its subsidiaries shall each be considered joint employers of the corporation’s, the parent’s, or the subsidiaries’ employees....

I.C. § 22-3-6-1(a) (emphases added).

Thus, under the Act, the definition of an employer includes an “association.” And Indiana courts have defined joint ventures as an “association of two or more persons formed to carry out a single business enterprise for profit.” Walker, 887 N.E.2d at 138. We have also described joint ventures as analogous to partnerships: “A joint venture is similar to a partnership except that a joint venture contemplates only a single transaction.” Id. Under Indiana law, “[a] partnership is an association of two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit....” I.C. § 23-4-1-6(1) (emphasis added).

We conclude that an “association” under Indiana Code Section 22-3-6-1 includes a joint venture. That is particularly true where, as here, SCCC’s net profits in a given year, which were distributed to Alcoa and Peabody, were net of payments made for worker’s compensation insurance. ■ See, e.g., Appellants’ App. at 1098. It would be contrary to the intent of the Act for an enterprise to pay for worker’s compensation insurance without receiving the statutory benefit of tort immunity from work-related claims. See, e.g., Greene, 573 N.E.2d at 453.

Nonetheless, the Musgraves assert that the plain language of the statute excludes joint ventures and that, if our legislature had wanted to use that term in the statute, it would have done so. But this court “will examine the statute as a whole, and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning.” A.J. 956 N.E.2d at 104. To exclude joint ventures from the Act would require a strict, literal reading that is not necessary. It would also exclude joint ventures when other similar business structures, such as firms, associations, and parent corporations, are included. Further, we will interpret a statute to avoid an absurd or unjust result. Id. To exclude joint ventures from the definition of an employer would be absurd since joint ventures are associations by definition, and it would produce an unjust result on these facts since SCCC paid for worker’s compensation insurance. See Walker, 887 N.E.2d at 138. Thus, a joint venture is within the statutory definition of an employer.

It is well-established Indiana law that an employee of a joint venture is the employee of each member of the joint venture. Baker, 132 N.E.2d at 275-76. In Baker, Baker was the owner of a carnival enterprise. He entered into a contract to sell the carnival to Allen. At the time of the contract, Baker was in possession and control of a Ferris wheel and a special truck used for its transportation, which were not included in the contract. However, Baker orally agreed to furnish the Ferris wheel and truck to Allen for Allen’s use in connection with the carnival, and Allen furnished and paid for all-help necessary for its operation and transportation from place to place. The net proceeds of the operation were split evenly between Baker and Allen, and Baker had control of the Ferris wheel while it was being used by the carnival.

Allen hired Billingsley to erect and assist with the operation of the Ferris wheel. While erecting the Ferris wheel, Billings-ley lost his right arm when it was entangled in the ropes of the hoisting gear. It was undisputed that “[f]rom the time [Bill-ingsley] was employed until he was hurt he never saw Baker and Baker never gave him any orders or directed his work.... As far as [Billingsley] knew Allen was his sole boss and all work he did was done under Allen’s direction.” Id. at 275.

Nonetheless, Billingsley filed a worker’s compensation claim and won an award against both Baker and Allen. Baker appealed that decision, contending that he was not liable because Billingsley was “in the sole employ of Allen at the time he was injured.” Id. at 275. Baker argued that Billingsley was on Allen’s payroll and Allen withheld taxes and unemployment insurance premiums from Billingsley’s wages. However, we held that Baker and Allen’s agreement with respect to the Ferris wheel met the requirements of a joint venture, and that “the liability of persons engaged in a joint adventure is that of partners.” Id. at 276; see also DLZ, 902 N.E.2d at 330 (“As in a partnership, the parties to a joint vénture are jointly and severally liable.”). Accordingly, we affirmed Baker’s liability to Billingsley.

The Musgraves argue that “the Baker court’s holding is properly limited to situations where each joint venturer has already been determined to be the employer of the injured employee.” Appellants’ Br. at 33. This is incorrect. The court in Baker did not assume that Billingsley was Baker’s employee, nor did it engage in an analysis of whether Billingsley was Baker’s employee. The court instead analyzed whether Baker and Allen were engaged in a joint venture and, finding that they were, held them to be liable as “partners.” 132 N.E.2d at 276. Thus, the holding of Baker was that the members of a joint venture are each liable under the Act for any employees injured while working for the joint venture. Id. at 275-76. It is a necessary corollary that the members of a joint venture are immune from tort liability for work-related claims made outside the scope of the Act. I.C. § 22-3-2-6.

The relationship between Baker and Billingsley is similar to the relationship between Alcoa and Musgrave. Since SCCC was the joint venture of Alcoa and Peabody, under Indiana’s statutes and case law Alcoa is the employer of any joint venture employees. Therefore, if Bil was the employee of SCCC, Alcoa would be entitled under the Act to immunity from his work-related tort claims.

Whether Bil was the Employee of SCCC and Whether Alcoa is Immune under a Factors Analysis

The final question then is whether Bil was the employee of SCCC. The Mus-graves assert that he was not and, rather, that he was the employee of Peabody. The Musgraves also assert that, even if SCCC is a joint venture, because Bil was the employee of Peabody, Alcoa is not protected from Bil’s work-related claims by the Act’s exclusivity provisions. Instead, the Musgraves continue, the proper method to determine whether Alcoa was also Bil’s employer under the Act is to apply the multi-factor analysis set forth in Hale v. Kemp, 579 N.E.2d 63, 67 (Ind.1991). We cannot agree.

The Musgraves’ argument on this issue assumes their conclusion that Bil was the employee of Peabody. In support of this assumption, the Musgraves rely substantially on Section 2.2 of the JVA and affidavits filed by Bil and other Union workers at Squaw Creek. According to Section 2.2 of the JVA:

Section 2.2. Responsibilities of Peabody.
(a) Peabody, with its own employees (who shall not thereby become [SCCC] employees) and at its own cost and expense, shall be responsible for:
(1) All administration, general supervision, management and technical assistance;
(2) All of the purchasing (except purchases which Alcoa has advised Peabody in advance can, in Alcoa’s opinion, be made more advantageously by Alcoa);
(3) Keeping all books and records and doing all accounting work; and
(4) Furnishing all general engineering.

Appellants’ App. at 754 (emphasis added). The Musgraves interpret Section 2.2 to create a wall of separation between Peabody employees and Alcoa employees. But, insofar as that might be true, it is true only for the four listed tasks, which are managerial. The Musgraves do not suggest that Bil performed any of those four listed tasks, nor do they cite evidence in the record that would support such a suggestion.

Neither is Bil’s perception, or the perception of any other employee, of the identity of his employer dispositive in determining who his employer actually was. In Baker, Billingsley only interacted with Allen, was paid by Allen, and believed Allen to be his sole employer. Nonetheless, we held that Allen and Baker were engaged in a joint venture and, as such, they were jointly and severally liable to Billingsley. Baker, 132 N.E.2d at 275. Thus, the employee’s perception of who his employer is is not dispositive.

On the other hand, there is objective evidence that Bil was the employee of the joint venture, SCCC, and not of Peabody. In particular, Bil’s Social Security earnings statement indicates that SCCC was his employer between 1977 and 2000. Appellants’ App. at 1053-54. W-2s of other miners at Squaw Creek likewise named their employer as SCCC. See, e.g., id. at 1043-50. And, as described above, Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture. Thus, given that Bil acknowledges he was working at Squaw Creek pursuant to a relationship with Peabody, under our holding in' Baker Bil was an employee of SCCC.

Likewise, Hale is distinguishable because it involved a “borrowed servant” and two distinct employers, while the instant case involves a single employer, SCCC, albeit with potential joint and several liability between Peabody and Alcoa as the members of the joint venture. See 579 N.E.2d at 67. In Hale, an employee’s general employer loaned him to a special employer and, in the course of working for the special employer, the employee was injured. Because the employee was, a “borrowed” employee, .the court considered whether the special employer could claim employer status under the Act. The court analyzed the relationship between the employee and the special employer by applying a seven-factor test:

To determine if an employer-employee relationship exists which may subject an employee to the Worker’s Compensation Act so as to bar his common law claim against the special employer to whom he was “loaned,” the following factors have been enumerated: (1) the right to discharge; (2) the mode of payment; (3) supplying tools or equipment; (4) belief of the parties in the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (5) control over the means used in the results reached; (6) length of employment; and (7) establishment of the work boundaries.

Id. The court'held that, on the facts before it, the special employer was not an employer of the employee and, therefore, was not entitled to immunity under the Act. Id.

Here, the Hale test is inapposite because Bil was not a “borrowed” employee and there are not two employers. See id.; see also Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 n. 3 (Ind.2001) (noting that the seven-factor Hale test is “for determining whether a person is an employee of two different employers”). Unlike those circumstances that would give rise to the Hale test, Bil was the employee of SCCC, which, in turn, was the joint venture entity of Alcoa and Peabody. Accordingly, Hale does not apply, Alcoa is immune under the Act from Bil’s work-related claims, and we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Mus-graves’ work-related claims pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1).

Issue Two: The Musgraves’ Recreational Claims and the Statute of Limitations

We next consider the Musgraves’ challenge to Jury Instruction No. 25, which instructed the jury on the statute of limitations, following the trial on the Musgraves’ allegations that their recreational exposure to Alcoa’s chemicals caused them injury. The Musgraves make two arguments on this issue. First, they assert that the instruction was an incorrect statement of law. Second, they assert that there was insufficient evidence to support the giving of the instruction. We address each argument in turn.

Whether the Instruction was a Correct Statement of Law

The Musgraves first assert that Instruction No. 25 was an incorrect statement of law. As our supreme court has explained:

The trial court has broad discretion as to how to instruct the jury, and we generally review that discretion only for abuse. Where, however, as here, the appellant’s challenge to the instruction is ... that the instruction was an incorrect statement of law[,] we review the trial court’s interpretation of that law de novo.

Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind.2012) (citation omitted).

The parties agree that our supreme court’s opinion in Degussa v. Mullens, 744 N.E.2d 407 (Ind.2001), states the law on when the statute of limitations begins to run for toxic tort cases. In Degussa, the court held as follows:

While the present case is one based on a products liability claim, case law regarding medical malpractice claims is instructive because medical and diagnostic issues are common between the two actions, the statute of limitations for both claims is two years, and discovery is sometimes at issue in determining whether the respective statutes of limitation have been triggered. The question of when a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice “discovered facts which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery of the medical malpractice and resulting injury, is often a question of fact.” Van Dusen v. Stotts, 712 N.E.2d 491, 499 (Ind.1999).

We agree with the Court of Appeals’s assertion in the present case that a plaintiff need not know with certainty that malpractice caused his injuryf ] to trigger the running of the statutory time period. Once a plaintiffs doctor expressly informs the plaintiff that there is a “reasonable possibility, if not a probability” that an injury was caused by an act or product, then the statute of limitations begins to run and the issue may become a matter of law. When a doctor so informs a potential plaintiff, .the plaintiff is deemed to have sufficient information such that he or she should promptly seek “additional medical or legal advice needed to resolve any remaining uncertainty or confusion” regarding the cause of his or her , injuries, and therefore be able to file a claim within two years of being informed of a reasonably possible or likely cause. An unexplained failure to seek additional information should not excuse a plaintiffs failure to file a claim within the statutorily defined time period.

Although “[e]vents short of a doctor’s diagnosis can provide a plaintiff with evidence of a reasonable possibility that another’s” product caused his or her injuries, a plaintiffs mere suspicion or speculation that another’s product caused the injuries is insufficient to trigger the statute....

Id. at 410-11 (alteration original; some citations omitted).

Instruction No. 25 stated, in relevant part, as follows:

The two[-]year statute of limitations begins to run from the date the Plaintiff knew or should have discovered that he suffered an injury that was caused by an act' of the Defendant^]. This clearly would occur[ ] if and when[ ] the Plaintiffs doctor informed the Plaintiff that there was a reasonable possibility if not probability that the Plaintiffs injury was caused by an act of the Defendant. Events short of a doctor’s diagnosis can provide a plaintiff with evidence of a reasonable possibility that another’s act caused his injuries. A Plaintiffs mere suspicions or speculation would not be enough to trigger the statute of limitations.

Instruction No. 25, Transcript Vol. 25 (emphasis added).

The Musgraves assert that Instruction No. 25 is an incorrect statement of law because “[t]he statute of limitations ... cannot begin running in' a case of this complexity ... until a medical professional advises the plaintiff of at least a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs injury was caused by the defendant.” Appellants’ Br. at' 44. Thus, the Musgraves would require, as a matter of law, that the statute of limitations does not begin to run in “eomplex[ ]” cases until a medical professional has informed the plaintiff of at least a reasonable possibility that his injuries were caused by the defendant. Id.

But the Musgraves’ requirement is contrary to Degussa. As our supreme court explained, a medical professional’s opinion can cause the statute of limitations to begin to run, but such an opinion is not a necessary prerequisite to trigger the statute of limitations. Degussa, 744 N.E.2d at 411. Rather, “[e]vents short of a doctor’s diagnosis can provide a plaintiff with evidence of a reasonable possibility that another’s product caused his or her injuries.” Id. (alteration original; quotations omitted). Whether such events occurred “is often a question of fact.” Id. (quoting Van Dusen, 712 N.E.2d at 499). Instruction No. 25 tracks Degussa and is a correct statement of law.

Whether the Instruction is Supported by the Evidence

The Musgraves also assert that there was no evidence in the record to support giving Instruction No. 25. In determining whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving an instruction, we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Kane, 976 N.E.2d at 1231. Under the abuse of discretion standard, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the decision” of the trial court. Short v. State, 962 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind.Ct.App.2012).

However, the Musgraves did not preserve this argument for appellate review because they did not object to Instruction No. 25 on this ground to the trial court. It is well established that “[a] party may not object on one ground at trial and seek reversal on appeal using a different ground.” Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Ind.1998); see also Showalter v. Town of Thorntown, 902 N.E.2d 338, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (stating that the trial court “cannot be found to have erred as to an issue or argument that it never had an opportunity to consider”) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. The Musgraves did not object to the jury instruction on the statute of limitations on the ground that such an instruction was not supported by the evidence. Rather, the Musgraves- objected only to the language of Instruction No. 25 under Degussa and proffered an alternative instruction, which would have stated that the statute of limitations could not have begun to run until a medical professional had informed Bil of at least a reasonable possibility that his injuries were caused by Alcoa. See Transcript at 3349. Thus, not only did the Musgraves not present this argument to the trial court, they proffered their own instruction on the statute of limitations. Their argument on appeal that there was no evidence to support giving any such instruction is contrary to their position in the trial court and is waived.

Further, the Musgraves do not present their evidentiary challenge as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the jury’s verdict. Nor could they. In Henri v. Curto, our supreme court held:

a claim of insufficient evidence must be preserved by proper presentation to the trial court. Such a challenge may not be initially raised on appeal in civil cases if not previously preserved in the trial court by either a motion for judgment on the evidence filed before judgment or in a motion to correct error.

908 N.E.2d 196, 208 (Ind.2009). The Mus-graves did not file either a motion for judgment on the evidence or a motion to correct error on Alcoa’s statute of limitations defense. When we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the evidence, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party. Raess v. Doeseher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind.2008). But, here, there was no Trial Rule 50 motion and no motion to correct error, and we have nothing to review. Accordingly, the Musgraves have not preserved their argument that Instruction No. 25 is not supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

In sum, the trial court properly dismissed the Musgraves’ work-related claims against Alcoa pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1). The trial court also properly instructed the jury on the statute of limitations, and the Musgraves did not preserve their argument that the jury instruction was not supported by the evidence for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict for Alcoa.

Affirmed.

BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.

      . We held oral argument on June 25, 2013.

      . Given our holding, we need not address the Musgraves' additional assertion that the trial court erroneously dismissed their claims for emotional distress.

      . The JVA shortens the name to "Squaw Creek,” but in their briefs the parties consistently use "Squaw Creek” to refer to the location of the mine and "SCCC” to refer to the name of the company created in the JVA.

      . Not surprisingly, the transcript of the trial court proceedings is voluminous, and the exhibits are separately appended to the transcript in seven additional volumes. But the pages of the transcript in which the exhibits appear are not individually numbered, and, contrary to Indiana Appellate Rules 50(A)(2)(g) and (3), the parties have not included the essential portions of the exhibits important to this appeal in the appendices. This has made verifying the parties' references to the exhibits cumbersome.

      . As with the exhibits, the jury instructions are in a separate volume of the transcript that is not paginated, and the instructions relevant to this appeal are not separately included in the parties’ appendices.

      . As to the other subissues, in particular we decline the Musgraves' request to apply judicial estoppel against Alcoa. In 1999, the Union brought a claim against Alcoa to the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). The Union alleged that Alcoa was the alter ego of SCCC, with which the Union had a contract for employment services, and, as such, Alcoa was not permitted to hire non-Union miners. Relying in part on evidence submitted by Alcoa, the NLRB concluded that the Union had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Alcoa "had any substantial or meaningful involvement with the labor relation matters concerning [SCCC's] bargaining unit employees.” Appellants' App. at 337. Alcoa has never asserted otherwise in the instant proceedings. Rather, Alcoa’s position here is that SCCC is its joint venture and that, as a joint venture member, Alcoa is entitled to immunity from occupational claims under the Worker's Compensation Act. Judicial estoppel does not apply here. See Morgan Cnty. Hosp. v. Upham, 884 N.E.2d 275, 280 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied.

      . Insofar as Bil's work-related claims also invoke Indiana’s Occupational Diseases Act, our discussion of the Worker’s Compensation Act is equally applicable. See, e.g., Ind.Code §§ 22-3-7-6 (exclusivity provision of the Occupational Diseases Act); 22-3-7-9(a) (definition of "employer”).

      . Alcoa asserts in its brief that this court labeled SCCC a joint venture in a prior appeal between the Musgraves and SCCC. See Musgrave v. Squaw Creek Coal Co., 964 N.E.2d 891, 894 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied. However, our comment appeared in our statement of facts and was not analyzed, and the main issue on appeal involved a DNR decision to release portions of SCCC’s reclamation bond on a surface mining permit. As such, we did not hold that SCCC was a joint venture.

      . The Musgraves cite Department of Treasury of Indiana v. Muessel, 218 Ind. 250, 256, 32 N.E.2d 596, 598 (1941), to argue that the word ''includes” in "[i]ts ordinary use is as a term of limitation....” See Appellants’ Br. at 20-21. But the word used in Muessel was the modifier "including,” a participle that is often a word of limitation, not the verb "includes,” which, as the Tax Court has recognized, is a "significant” difference. See May Dep’t Stores Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 749 N.E.2d 651, 662 (Ind. Tax Ct.2001) ("It would be unreasonable and illogical to equate 'including' ... with the word ‘includes’.... ”).

      . There is no dispute that, while the JVA did not delineate Peabody's and Alcoa’s liabilities in any manner other than jointly and severally, the RJVA did do so on these facts. In particular, Section 2.3(c) of the RJVA "explicitly allocated to Alcoa liability for costs associated with workers’ compensation for the joint venture's former [Union]-represented workforce, including Mr. Musgrave.” Appellees' Br. at 19.

      . In their reply brief, the Musgraves cite an unpublished order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in which the court stated that Indiana's statute of limitations begins to run ' “only once a plaintiff's doctor expressly informs the plaintiff that there is a reasonable probability that an injury was caused by an act or product.’’ Cunningham v. Masterwear, Inc., 2006 WL 517612 at *8 (S.D.Ind. Mar. 1, 2006). This appears to be a misstatement of the law described in Degussa. In any event, we are not bound by a federal court's interpretation of Indiana law. See, e.g., Kirby v. Ashland Oil Inc., 463 N.E.2d 1127, 1129 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1984).

      . At oral argument, the Musgraves provided various citations to the appellate record that purported to show their preservation of this issue. Those citations do not support their assertion that they preserved this issue for our review.

      . Likewise, insofar as the Musgraves assert that the trial court erred when it "permitt[ed] Alcoa to argue in closing statements] that the Musgraves, not Alcoa, bore the burden of disproving Alcoa's statute of limitations defense,” the Musgraves do not cite the portion of the record that demonstrates their objection to this purported issue. See Appellants’ Br. at 52. And the Musgraves’ further assertion- that ”[i]t was error for the court to have permitted Alcoa to question Kim Musgrave about contacting [the California law firm of] Masry and Vititoe,” see id., is not developed in light of our standard of review, the law relating to such issues, or whether the trial court's purported error affected the Musgraves' substantial rights. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).