ILNews

Appellate court affirms judgment in coverage dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent insurance policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed insurance contract, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.

In a suit involving whether State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. had a duty to defend and indemnify Flexdar Inc. following discovery of contamination on Flexdar’s property, Flexdar argued it should have been allowed to introduce a new policy endorsement form that State Auto drafted in 2004 – two years after Flexdar’s policy coverage ended – that specifically identified trichloroethylene and other substances as examples of “pollutants” under the insurer’s pollution exclusion. The policy Flexdar held didn’t specifically name any pollutants; TCE was found to have leaked from Flexdar’s premises and contaminated subsoil and groundwater. The trial court didn’t allow the 2004 policy into evidence.

The appellate court noted that Evidence Rule 407 is typically associated with personal injury and other negligence cases, but that it’s worded broadly and courts have applied it in other contexts, including intentional tort and contract claims. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has read the federal counterpart to Evidence Rule 407, which is substantially similar to the Indiana rule, to exclude evidence of subsequent policy revisions in insurance coverage.

Citing Pastor v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 487, F.3d 1042, 1045 (7th Cir. 2007), the judges ruled in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar, Inc. and RTS Realty, No. 49A02-1002-PL-111, that Evidence Rule 407 can bar evidence of subsequent policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an insurance contract. As such, any modifications State Auto made to its policy forms in 2004 constitute subsequent remedial clarifications that aren’t admissible to interpret Flexdar’s insurance contract and prove the insurer’s liability, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The trial court didn’t err by striking it from the designated evidence.

The trial court also didn’t err in finding State Auto’s pollution exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable. It relied on American States Insurance Co. v.  Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996), Seymour Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 665 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 1996), Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Summit Corp. of America, N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), and Freidline v. Shelby Insurance Co., 774 N.E. 2d 37 (Ind. 2002), finding the former three cases extend Kiger beyond its facts and affirm generally the ambiguity of the absolute pollution exclusion.

“We conclude, pursuant to the last fourteen years of precedent, that State Auto’s absolute pollution exclusion is ambiguous, must be construed in favor of the insured, and therefore will not operate to preclude coverage in connection with Flexdar’s TCE leakage,” she wrote. “Under Kiger and its progeny … an insurance policy must be specific if it wishes to except from coverage claims relating a particular alleged contaminant. It is within the province only of our Supreme Court to decide otherwise.”

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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT