ILNews

Circuit Court reverses insurance case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for an insurer on the issue of whether the commercial general liability policy covered faulty subcontractor work, citing a similar case recently ruled on by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Circuit Court also dealt with an issue surrounding umbrella policies for the first time.

In Trinity Homes LLC and Beazer Homes Investments LLC v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. and Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 09-3613, the homebuilders appealed summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and Cincinnati Insurance on its suit that the insurers breached their contracts by not providing coverage after builders incurred significant liability related to defective work done by subcontractors. Ohio Casualty, a primary insurer, claimed its policy didn’t cover subcontractor work. Cincinnati, which provided an umbrella policy, argued its coverage wasn’t triggered because all of the builders’ underlying policies were not unavailable as required by the policy.

The builders settled with all its other commercial general liability insurers, which resulted in those insurers paying at least 75 percent of the relevant policy limit. This would functionally exhaust the CGL policy. The builders would make up the difference.  

The 7th Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty, citing Sheehan Construction Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2010). In Sheehan, the Supreme Court clarified a standard CGL policy does cover damage to a home’s structure resulting from defective subcontractor work unless the subcontractor work was intentionally faulty. They left the application of any exclusions or limitations in the policy, as well as any other state law doctrines, for the District Court on remand.

The judges then moved on to the claim against Cincinnati. They looked at whether the settlement between the other insurers was sufficient to exhaust the CGL’s policy coverage under the umbrella policy. They disagreed that the umbrella policy clearly required exhaustion, finding the terms of the policy to be ambiguous.

Cincinnati argued that other courts dealing with similar umbrella policies have held that the policies require a full payout before it’s exhausted. But Cincinnati’s policy didn’t include clear language that stated the coverage wasn’t triggered absent a payment of the full CGL policy limit by the insurer, as the insurers involved in the cases Cincinnati cited had included.

Other Circuit Courts have held that exhaustion of a primary policy could be accomplished by a settlement agreement where the primary insurer paid some of the limit and the insurer paid the remainder.

“Although Indiana law controls, there is no reason to suspect that it would differ from these analogous holdings,” wrote Judge Michael Kanne. “Our construction of the ambiguity in Cincinnati’s policy is also reinforced by Indiana public policy favoring out-of-court settlement. Cincinnati’s reading of the policy would deter parties who have both CGL and excess insurance from settling with their CGL insurers.”

The judges also declined to reach the question of whether any exclusions or limitations in Cincinnati’s policy apply to the builders’ claim, leaving that for the District Court on remand.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT