imposing the doctrine of caveat lessee on residential leases would in effect shield landlords from lability and place tenants in an inferior bargaining position in comparison to that of the landlord. Thus, Indiana courts have consistently acknowledged the landlord's duty to render the premises habitable even in the absence of an express covenant. Although Indiana clearly recognizes the implied warranty of habitability in the context of landlord-tenant disputes, it is less obvious whether the implied warranty provides the basis for relief on claims of personal injury. See Hodge v. Nor-Cen, Inc., 527 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (deelin-ing to address the extension of the warranty of habitability to personal injury claims); Old Town Dev. Co. v. Langford, 349 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.Ct.App.1976) (<HOLDING>), trans. granted 267 Ind. 176, 369 N.E.2d 404
holding that secretarys sovereign immunity defense to tenants claim for damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability does not bar tenants right to seek restitution but leaving open question whether consequential damages available holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding that upon breach of an implied warranty of habitability landlord is liable to tenant for all damages available under traditional remedies for breach of contract and for personal injury and personal property damage in tort under traditional negligenee principles holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract