ILNews

Appeals court rules on gas station's insurance coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Determining that an insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify a Warsaw service station for contamination cleanup, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a Kosciusko Superior Court decision finding otherwise.

The case, Indiana Farm Insurance Company as subrogee of Joseph Koors d/b/a Koors Amoco v. Harleysville Insurance Company, involves an Amoco station in Warsaw owned by Joseph Koors, who in 1998 notified the Indiana Department of Environmental Management of his desire to remove the underground storage tank system at the service station. An environmental site assessment found some contamination, including water contamination, had occurred. Koors later demanded that its insurance carriers during that period, Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance and Harleysville Insurance Company, defend and indemnify relating to IDEM’s actions, environmental testing and remediation. Harleysville in April 2009 notified Koors that it didn’t believe it had a duty to defend and indemnify him on the basis that any loss relating to the IDEM action came before its insurance coverage began in August 1998, that Koors had breached the policy by failing to notify Harleysville as soon as practicable that a loss had occurred, and that the pollution exclusion in the contract barred at least some of the coverage, if not all.

Farm Bureau filed a complaint for contribution from Harleysville in November 2009, and in August 2011 Kosciusko Superior Judge Duane Huffer granted summary judgment for Harleysville and against Farm Bureau.

On appeal, Farm Bureau contends that the “known loss” doctrine – first recognized by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2000 – does not excuse Harleysville from its obligation to defend and indemnify Koors. The common law concept comes from the fundamental requirement in insurance law that the loss be fortuitous, and the appellate panel in this case found that Harleysville is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the known loss doctrine precludes coverage.

The appellate panel determined that the question of unreasonable delay in Koors notifying Harleysville about the loss is one for the jury to address, as is the question about prejudice in regard to the delay.

In analyzing whether gasoline can be considered a “pollutant” under Harleysville’s policies, the appellate panel relied on a decision from the Indiana Supreme Court in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945, 947 (Ind. 1996). The language was similar to the policy language in that case, Judge Cale Bradford wrote, and so the court held that gasoline is not considered a “pollutant” under the Harleysville policy just as it wasn’t in Kiger. Harleysville is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the pollution exclusion applies to gasoline leaks.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this appellate opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT