ILNews

COA: insurer owed duty to defend

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
After nearly 10 years of litigation, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company because the company couldn't show it was prejudiced by a late notice from its insured as a matter of law.

In the unanimous 27-page opinion, Tri-Etch Inc., et al v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 49A02-0709-CV-827, the appellate court ruled in favor of the appellants-plaintiffs in this appeal - Tri-Etch, which provides security services; the estate of Michael Young; and Scottsdale Insurance Co., which provided insurance to Tri-Etch with a $1 million limit of liability.

The back-and-forth litigation between Tri-Etch, the estate, and Scottsdale and Cincinnati Insurance Co., which also provided a commercial general liability (CGL) and umbrella policy to Tri-Etch, began in 1999 after the estate filed a complaint against Tri-Etch.

Tri-Etch provided security for Muncie Liquors and would call a store's general manager if the store's night alarm wasn't set within 30 minutes of closing. Michael Young, an employee at the liquor store, was found beaten outside of the store after Tri-Etch called the store's owner at 3:15 a.m. The store closed at midnight and the alarm wasn't set, but Tri-Etch didn't call the general manager to make sure everything was OK at the store until 3:15 a.m. Young subsequently died of his injuries, and the complaint alleged he would have lived had Tri-Etch called at 12:30 a.m. once it realized the alarm wasn't set.

At issue in this case are two orders granted by Marion County trial courts. In 2006, the first order granted partial summary judgment in favor of Tri-Etch and the appellants on the bad faith counterclaim brought by Cincinnati. It granted partial summary judgment to the appellants finding that Young's death is covered under Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies and denied Scottsdale and Cincinnati's motions for summary judgment regarding Scottsdale's claim to recover 50 percent of the legal fees and costs Scottsdale paid to defend Tri-Etch.

Cincinnati claimed it didn't learn of the litigation until 2004, just before the claim was to go to trial. The insurance company informed Tri-Etch that the estate's claim wasn't covered by either of its policies with Cincinnati, so it wouldn't be responsible to pay a portion of the $2.5 million in damages the estate won against Tri-Etch.

The second order issued in 2007 granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati and ordered that Tri-Etch's late notice to Cincinnati was unreasonably late as a matter of law, and due to the prejudice arising from the untimely notice, the company owes no coverage or indemnity to Tri-Etch.

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that Cincinnati wasn't prejudiced by Tri-Etch's allegedly late notice because the insurance company consistently maintained Tri-Etch wasn't entitled to coverage for the claim, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. As a result, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati in the second order and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the appellants.

Regarding the first order, the judges concluded Tri-Etch is entitled to coverage pursuant to both Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies, requiring Cincinnati to be responsible for $1.5 million in damages the estate won.

The court also remanded the issue of Cincinnati's liability for defense costs to Scottsdale because Scottsdale defended Tri-Etch from the start of the claim.

"Because we have concluded that coverage existed under Cincinnati's policies, each of which contained duty-to-defend provisions, it logically follows that Cincinnati must pay a portion of the costs Scottsdale incurred while defending Tri-Etch during the liability litigation," the chief judge wrote.

The appellate court remanded the issue to the trial court to determine when Cincinnati received notice of the claim to determine the amount of reasonable defense costs Cincinnati should pay.
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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT