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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT