BARNES, J.
Michael Harrison appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC (“Veolia”). We reverse and remand.
The sole restated issue before us is whether Veolia is entitled to summary judgment because it is a political subdivision of the State, and Harrison failed to give it notice of his claim against it in accordance with the Indiana Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”).
. . . .
Indiana courts have recognized limited circumstances in which private entities named as a defendant in a tort lawsuit may enjoy the benefits of ITCA. Our supreme court has held, “When private individuals or groups are endowed by the state with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the state and are subject to the laws and statutes affecting governmental agencies and corporations.” Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 493 N.E.2d 1229, 1235 (Ind. 1986) (citing Evans, et al. v. Newton, et al., 382 U.S. 296, 86 S. Ct. 486 (1966)). . . .
. . . .
We . . . conclude, after considering the evident purposes of ITCA and the development of the common law predating ITCA’s adoption, that Veolia is not a governmental entity or a political subdivision of the State entitled to ITCA’s protections. The most fundamental basis for this holding is that the courts of Indiana have never recognized the provision of utility services as a power or function “governmental in nature” that gave rise to sovereign immunity, even when a governmental unit was operating the utility. We presume the General Assembly was well aware of the fact that utilities, whether privately or publicly owned, never enjoyed any special treatment or immunity from liability. If the General Assembly wanted to alter this arrangement, it clearly could have done so when it enacted ITCA by expressly including utilities, publicly-owned or otherwise, within the definition of “political subdivision.” It did not.
. . . .
We also do not believe extending ITCA’s protections to Veolia, particularly with respect to an “ordinary” tort claim, would be consistent with ITCA’s apparent purposes. . . . [O]ne of the main concerns ITCA intended to address clearly was protection of the public treasury from a multitude of tort lawsuits. . . . That concern is not present with Veolia.
Simply put, we cannot discern a legislative intent to shield or provide special protections to for-profit enterprises, including ones that are part of a multi-national, multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, because they provide services to a governmental entity. Indeed, one of the key factors that led our supreme court in Ayres to conclude that the volunteer fire department was a governmental entity was the “nominal” amount of its contract with the municipality it served. Ayres, 493 N.E.2d at 1237. Veolia’s $40 million-plus per year contract with the Department cannot be considered “nominal.”
Veolia also contends it should be considered a political subdivision of the State because the Management Agreement between Veolia and the Department subjects Veolia to extensive control by the Department. . . .
. . . Veolia’s claim that the Management Agreement it voluntarily entered into with the Department has transformed it into a political subdivision of the State for ITCA purposes clearly is not a viable argument.
Veolia also contends it should be entitled to ITCA protection because it is contractually required to comply with various rules and regulations for water utilities established by federal and state statutes, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board. These rules and regulations, including Indiana Code Section 13-18-16-6 that Veolia cites, are essentially health and safety or environmental regulations for drinking water. Veolia, having voluntarily chosen to enter the business of supplying water to a municipality, certainly must have been aware of those regulations and likely figured the cost of complying with them into its equation when deciding how much to charge the Department for its services and still make a profit. Put another way, there are many businesses and industries that are subject to extensive public health and safety and environmental regulations, but it cannot be that requiring a business or other entity to comply with such regulations transforms that business or entity into a governmental body. Our supreme court plainly has indicated that the operation of a utility, whether by a municipality or private entity, is a “private business” matter, even though the utility may be subject to extensive regulation by the State. See City of Logansport, 202 Ind. at 534-35, 177 N.E. at 253.
We hold that Veolia is not a political subdivision of the State for purposes of ITCA. The trial court erred in concluding otherwise and granting Veolia’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that Harrison failed to provide Veolia with notice of his injury pursuant to ITCA. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
BAILEY, J., and MAY, J., concur.