Rush, C.J.
After Emmert Industrial Corporation (“Emmert”) successfully transported an enormous process tower vessel from Indiana to Tennessee, the vessel’s manufacturer—Kennedy Tank & Manufacturing Company (“Kennedy”)—refused to pay nearly $700,000 in unforeseen transportation expenses. Emmert attempted to collect, but Kennedy still had not paid by the time a federal statute of limitations expired. Emmert eventually sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and Kennedy raised the federal statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, arguing it preempts Indiana’s longer limitations period. On this issue of first impression, we disagree with Kennedy and hold that Indiana’s ten-year statute of limitations is not preempted. Emmert’s collection claim may therefore proceed.
….
Indiana’s statute of limitations does not do “major damage” to Congress’s purpose because Congress used the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”), Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), to shift regulatory authority from the federal government to the states—not to assert federal authority over state-law collection actions. After all, we are primarily concerned with “the nature of the activities which the States have sought to regulate,” Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317–18 (1981) (quoting San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 243 (1959)), and here, those activities are areas of state authority.
….
Because Congress created this coexisting system of state and federal regulations for interstate transportation, Indiana’s statute of limitations is not preempted. In the end, “preemption will not lie unless it is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664 (quoting Rice, 331 U.S. at 230). Kennedy and Hemlock have not shown that clear and manifest purpose and, therefore, fail to overcome the presumption against preemption.
….
Conclusion
The ICCTA’s eighteen-month statute of limitations does not preempt Indiana’s ten-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract claims. Congress’s purpose was not to preempt state statutes of limitations, and Indiana’s statute of limitations does not do major damage to the ICCTA’s deregulatory purpose. Kennedy and Hemlock, therefore, have not carried their burden to establish preemption. We affirm the trial court.
Rucker, David, Massa, and Slaughter, JJ., concur.