ILNews

High court addresses provision for 1st time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for an insurance company, finding the exclusion in the policy for injuries covered by workers’ compensation doesn’t apply.

The high court was asked for the first time to review a provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. The provision states that anyone contracting for more than $1,000 of work may be liable to the same extent as the contractor for injuries under the Worker’s Compensation Act if the person hiring the contractor doesn’t verify that the contractor has workers’ compensation insurance liability.

Farmers Rick and Katrina Taylor hired Sherlock Contract Painting. One of Sherlock’s employees, Christopher Collis, was injured on the job. He discovered Sherlock didn’t have workers’ compensation benefits, which the Taylors didn’t verify before hiring Sherlock. Collis then sued the Taylors for benefits under Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-14(b).

The Taylors were insured with Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. and had a farm personal liability policy for “all risk” coverage. Everett Cash denied coverage for Collis’ accident. The Taylors then sued for breach of contract. The trial judge denied summary judgment for Everett Cash; a split Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

The Taylors argued Collis’ claim is a premises liability claim, so their policy should cover it. Everett Cash argued Collis’ claim is for workers’ compensation benefits, which are excluded under the policy. It claimed the occurrence under the policy must be an accident, and that the claim arose because of the Taylors’ failure to verify workers’ compensation benefits.

In Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rick and Katrina Taylor, No. 02S03-0909-CV-395, the Supreme Court ruled the claim was a result of an accident, so it was an occurrence as defined by the policy. The justices also found the language in the policy that Everett Cash claims to exclude this coverage to be ambiguous. It’s possible to read the language to mean that if not for I.C. Section 22-3-2-14(b), Collis wouldn’t have asserted the Taylors were responsible for his injuries and so Everett Cash wouldn’t have to pay, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

It’s also possible to interpret the exclusion language as to apply to employers who are directly within the application of the Worker’s Compensation Act. Farm or agricultural employees are excluded under the act and the Taylors aren’t required to have workers’ compensation benefits because they own and work a farm.

One could conclude that the exemption only clarifies that the policy provides no coverage in the conventional worker’s compensation context when an employee seeks the benefits payable by an insured under the law.

“It would be beyond the ordinary understanding of the worker’s compensation system to extend the exclusion to the matter-of-first-impression scenario here – where a claim is filed against an insured by an injured worker in the employ of a third party who did not comply with its obligations under the Act,” wrote the justice. “Given that the Taylors could not have even purchased worker’s compensation insurance to protect themselves from claims by Sherlock’s employees, it is hard to imagine them thinking that an exclusion regarding worker’s compensation could preclude them from having protection from a lawsuit by someone injured in an accident on their property.”

The justices held for an insurance policy to exclude such a claim as the one in the instant case, the exclusion must be more explicit than the language used in the Everett Cash policy.
 

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT