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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.