ILNews

Appellate court rules on insurance coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a group of insurance companies that argued a waste management company couldn’t seek coverage for asbestos and related worker injuries under policies signed by corporate predecessors before 1986.

In Continental Insurance Co., National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, Continental Casualty Co., and Columbia Casualty Co. v. Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., and Waste Management Holdings, Inc., No. 49A02-1010-PL-1110, the appellate court reversed a ruling by Marion Superior Judge Ted Sosin and found in favor of the insurance companies.

The case involved pre-1986 coverage that involved Allied Signal – now Honeywell International – selling assets and liability to the predecessor of Waste Management, when the insurance companies issued occurrence-based insurance policies to Honeywell’s predecessor. Since then, Waste Management has been sued by claimants on allegations that they suffered from asbestos and other related injuries while working in a building housing a filtration process.

Sosin ruled that Waste Management could seek coverage from the insurers whose predecessors had issued liability policies back in 1986, but the appellate court disagreed.

Relying on the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Casualty and Surety Co., et al. v. United States Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. 2008) which involved similar issues and parties, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the insurers.

No insurance coverage rights transferred to Waste Management by virtue of the 1986 agreements signed by all the predecessors when new agreements were signed in 2009, the appellate court’s majority found using the U.S. Filter rationale. Honeywell was no longer liable for the claims on the date it entered into the agreements in 2009, and Judge Paul Mathias wrote that Waste Management hasn’t directed the court to any evidence or argument that would warrant a different result.

Judge James Kirsch dissented without a separate opinion, and the case is remanded.

 

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. 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.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT