ILNews

Alarm company's actions not covered by policies

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the denial of summary judgment on an insurance company's coverage defenses, ruling its insured's actions leading to a lawsuit were "errors or omissions," and so weren't covered by the commercial general liability or umbrella policies.

In Tri-Etch, Inc., d/b/a Sonitrol Security Systems of Muncie, et al. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.,  No. 49S02-0901-CV-8, the justices unanimously held that alarm company Tri-Etch's CGL and umbrella insurance policies don't cover a wrongful death claim against Tri-Etch for delays in observing or reacting to the failure of a liquor store to make a scheduled setting of a night alarm. In 1997, Muncie liquor store clerk Michael Young was abducted and beaten just before the store's midnight closing, so the scheduled midnight alarm wasn't activated. It wasn't until 3 a.m. that Tri-Etch discovered the alarm hadn't been set. Young was found later that morning and died of his injuries.

Young's estate won a $2.5 million jury verdict against Tri-Etch in December 2004. The company had three insurance policies; at issue in this appeal is whether Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies cover the claim against Tri-Etch. Also disputed is whether Tri-Etch gave Cincinnati timely notice of the wrongful death claim.

In a dispute between Cincinnati, the estate, and the other insurers, the trial court ruled the estate's claim against Tri-Etch was covered by Cincinnati and ruled Tri-Etch's notice to Cincinnati was unreasonably late and no coverage under the CGL or umbrella policies was owed. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies both insure against liability for "bodily injury" caused by an "occurrence." The parties disputed whether Young's death was considered an accident, which would be covered as an occurrence, but the justices concluded Tri-Etch's unintentional oversight to call about the alarm around 12:30 a.m. was an error or omission, so it's not an occurrence covered by the CGL or umbrella policies, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

The umbrella policy also specifically excludes bodily injury "arising out of any act, error or omission of the insured in rendering or failing to render telephone answering, alarm monitoring or similar services."

"The jury's verdict necessarily established that Tri-Etch's failure breached its contractual obligation to the store or fell below the standard of care of a reasonable alarm company," wrote the justice. "The judgment therefore was for liability squarely within the exclusions of the umbrella policy."

In determining whether Cincinnati received late notice and was prejudiced by it, the Supreme Court looked to Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 1984). The high court disagreed with the ruling of the Court of Appeals using Miller, believing that an insurer's denial of coverage on other grounds as a matter of law doesn't rebut the presumption of prejudice from late notice.

"Even if an insurer consistently denies coverage, timely notice gives the insurer an opportunity to investigate while evidence is fresh, evaluate the claim, and participate in early settlement. The fact that an insurer asserts other coverage defenses does not render these opportunities meaningless," he wrote.

Because the high court determined Cincinnati's polices don't apply to the claim in this case, it didn't consider whether Tri-Etch's notice was late or if so, whether the late notice prejudiced Cincinnati. The trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati's coverage defenses was reversed and the issue remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the insurer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT