Crone, J.
Jennifer Diane Lucas was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 69 (I-69) in Fishers. Lucas, by guardian Diane Zeiss Nevitt, filed a complaint against several other motorists, the City of Fishers, and the State of Indiana, alleging in pertinent part that her injuries resulted from the State’s negligent redesign of I-69 at the accident site. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it is entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) because its redesign of I-69 was a discretionary function. The trial court denied the State’s motion, finding that the ITCA’s discretionary function immunity provision does not apply to Lucas’s negligent redesign claim. On appeal, the State argues that this ruling is erroneous. We disagree and therefore affirm the trial court.
….
Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3 reads in pertinent part as follows:
A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment is not liable if a loss results from the following:
…
(7) The performance of a discretionary function ….
…
(18) Design of a highway (as defined in IC 9-13-2-73), toll road project (as defined in IC 8-15-2-4(4)), tollway (as defined in IC 815-3-7), or project (as defined in IC 8-15.7-2-14) if the claimed loss occurs at least twenty (20) years after the public highway, toll road project, tollway, or project was designed or substantially redesigned; except that this subdivision shall not be construed to relieve a responsible governmental entity from the continuing duty to provide and maintain public highways in a reasonably safe condition.
….
For her part, Lucas contends that Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(18) controls in this situation because it is more specific than subdivision (7). We agree. See ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1199 (Ind. 2016) (“specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions”) (quoting Wright v. State, 949 N.E.2d 411, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)). [Footnote omitted.] Governmental discretionary functions are performed in numerous different contexts, including the (re)designing of a highway. To allow subdivision (7), which grants immunity for the performance of discretionary functions in general, to take priority over the more specific subdivision (18), which denies immunity for a loss that occurs within twenty years of a negligent highway design or substantial redesign, would render the latter provision meaningless, and “[i]t is well settled that we must presume the Legislature did not enact a useless provision.” Holcomb v. Bray, 187 N.E.3d 1268, 1289 (Ind. 2022).7 Moreover, as mentioned above, the ITCA must be strictly construed against limitations on a claimant’s right to bring suit. Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706.
The State does not contend that Lucas’s loss did not result from its 2012 redesign of southbound I-69, nor does it challenge the trial court’s determination that the redesign was “substantial” for purposes of Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(18). [Footnote omitted.] Consequently, the State is not entitled to immunity under subdivision (18), nor is it entitled to immunity under subdivision (7) for the reasons given above. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the State’s summary judgment motion.
Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.