ILNews

Appeals court rules on gas station's insurance coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Determining that an insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify a Warsaw service station for contamination cleanup, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a Kosciusko Superior Court decision finding otherwise.

The case, Indiana Farm Insurance Company as subrogee of Joseph Koors d/b/a Koors Amoco v. Harleysville Insurance Company, involves an Amoco station in Warsaw owned by Joseph Koors, who in 1998 notified the Indiana Department of Environmental Management of his desire to remove the underground storage tank system at the service station. An environmental site assessment found some contamination, including water contamination, had occurred. Koors later demanded that its insurance carriers during that period, Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance and Harleysville Insurance Company, defend and indemnify relating to IDEM’s actions, environmental testing and remediation. Harleysville in April 2009 notified Koors that it didn’t believe it had a duty to defend and indemnify him on the basis that any loss relating to the IDEM action came before its insurance coverage began in August 1998, that Koors had breached the policy by failing to notify Harleysville as soon as practicable that a loss had occurred, and that the pollution exclusion in the contract barred at least some of the coverage, if not all.

Farm Bureau filed a complaint for contribution from Harleysville in November 2009, and in August 2011 Kosciusko Superior Judge Duane Huffer granted summary judgment for Harleysville and against Farm Bureau.

On appeal, Farm Bureau contends that the “known loss” doctrine – first recognized by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2000 – does not excuse Harleysville from its obligation to defend and indemnify Koors. The common law concept comes from the fundamental requirement in insurance law that the loss be fortuitous, and the appellate panel in this case found that Harleysville is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the known loss doctrine precludes coverage.

The appellate panel determined that the question of unreasonable delay in Koors notifying Harleysville about the loss is one for the jury to address, as is the question about prejudice in regard to the delay.

In analyzing whether gasoline can be considered a “pollutant” under Harleysville’s policies, the appellate panel relied on a decision from the Indiana Supreme Court in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945, 947 (Ind. 1996). The language was similar to the policy language in that case, Judge Cale Bradford wrote, and so the court held that gasoline is not considered a “pollutant” under the Harleysville policy just as it wasn’t in Kiger. Harleysville is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the pollution exclusion applies to gasoline leaks.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this appellate opinion.

 

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