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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT