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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT