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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT