ILNews

Court clarifies ‘known claim’ exclusion applies in insurance coverage dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted rehearing to a case involving a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination and found that the “known claim” exclusion applies, not the known loss doctrine.

Patricia Kopetsky and Indiana Insurance Co. sought clarification from the appeals court regarding the possible finding that George Kopetsky knew of contamination in a housing development prior to obtaining CGL coverage from Indiana Insurance.

In June, the judges ordered a trial on the issue of whether the known loss doctrine would bar coverage by Indiana Insurance. George Kopetsky sold land to KB Home Indiana for a housing development. It’s alleged that he knew as early as May 2002 that some of the lots were contaminated. He obtained coverage from Indiana Insurance in April 2002 that was in effect for a four-year period.

The judges addressed the legal effect of Indiana Insurance’s knowledge of the contamination. Patricia Kopetsky argued that under the common law known loss doctrine, even if a jury found George Kopetsky knew of the contamination before taking out the policy, coverage would only be barred during the first of the four coverage years. The insurer, citing the known claim exclusionary language from the policies, argued that there is no coverage for the final three years, regardless of what the jury finds regarding George Kopetsky’s knowledge. It also argued that a finding he knew of the loss before obtaining coverage would bar coverage in the first year as well.

“We agree with Indiana Insurance because we conclude that, consistent with the Indiana Supreme Court’s approach in Sheehan Construction Co., Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (2010), the Policies’ ‘known claim’ exclusionary language controls,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc., 49A02-1304-PL-340.

That case requires the court to start with the policy language and determine if the loss would be covered under the general coverage clause and if any exclusions apply that would preclude coverage, without regard to whether the loss constituted an “economic loss.”

George Kopetsky knew of the contamination no later than May 2002, so coverage is barred for the second through fourth years, regardless of the jury’s finding of any prior knowledge. Any finding of knowledge of contamination prior to the first year of coverage only applies to the first year, Bradford wrote.

The original decision is affirmed in all other respects.  
 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT