ILNews

COA differs on why no insurer duty to defend

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges agreed that two insurance companies are entitled to summary judgment, but the judges disagreed as to why the insurers owed no duty to defend.

In P.R. Mallory & Co. Inc., et al. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, PA., et al., No. 54A01-0903-CV-142, P.R. Mallory and other companies affiliated with Radio Materials Corp. sued American Casualty Co. and Continental Casualty Co. in 2000 for breach of contract regarding the insurers' duty to defend relating to environmental contaminations caused by Radio Materials. Radio Materials operated a manufacturing plant of television parts in Attica in which it had two open, unlined pits from 1950 to the 1980s that contained various contaminants and other hazardous wastes.

CCC issued a commercial casualty policy to Radio Materials in 1981; ACC issued three commercial casualty policies for the years 1982-1984.

Beginning in the 1960s, Radio Materials became aware of contaminants from its site leaking and entering neighboring properties. It attempted to remove most of the contaminated soil in the 1990s. In March 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency entered a consent order for Radio Materials in which the agency found a release of hazardous waste into the environment and Radio Materials had to undertake all the actions required by the order.

The trial court granted ACC and CCC's motion for summary judgment based on late notice.

Judges Elaine Brown and L. Mark Bailey agreed with the trial court's reasoning for entering summary judgment for the insurers. The plaintiffs argued that Radio Materials' duty to provide notice didn't arise until the company subjectively became aware of the property damage happening during the 1980 to 1984 time period. But the designated evidence showed that beginning the 1960s, Radio Materials was aware of contamination seeping out to nearby properties. In the 1980s the company sent notice to Kraft Foods Corp., which through a merger had interest in Radio Materials' assets, regarding potential environmental pollution problems.

The plaintiffs had knowledge of an occurrence before they notified the insurers and the plaintiffs' delay in notifying ACC and CCC of the occurrence constituted unreasonably late notice, wrote Judge Brown. P.R. Mallory and the other companies failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice as a matter of law.

In his separate opinion in which he concurred in result, Judge Edward Najam wrote the case turned on whether there was an "occurrence" during the policy period, not whether Radio Materials satisfied the notice requirement. Radio Materials showed no evidence of property damage to non-owned property during the policy period of 1980 to 1984, so no occurrence took place that could suggest coverage, he wrote.

"In a coverage case, it is incumbent on the insured to present facts that indicate coverage," he wrote. "As we have held, where the facts alleged by an insured (and summary judgment nonmovant) reveal no circumstances that would indicate coverage, the insurer can 'not be held to have been required to defend' the insured from third-party actions."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT