ILNews

COA affirms Vectren, Citizens lack of standing

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a breach-of-contract complaint filed by Vectren Energy and Citizens By-products Coal Co. against Executive Risk Specialty Insurance, finding the two companies never had standing to file the complaint because they are trying to fix alleged wrongdoings done to another company, rather than themselves.

In Vectren Energy Marketing & Service, Inc., et al. v. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co., ProLiance Energy, LLC, et al., 82A05-0702-CV-115, Vectren and Citizens appealed the trial court's order granting Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company's (ERISC) motion to dismiss its complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Vectren and Citizens argue they have standing to pursue the complaint, their claim is not barred by collateral estoppel, and they have sufficiently pleaded a breach of contract claim against ERISC to withstand the motion to dismiss.

Vectren and Citizens are the only two members of ProLiance, an energy trading company. All three companies have a policy through ERSIC. The City of Huntsville, Ala., filed a complaint against ProLiance and two of its employees, and a jury found ProLiance and the two employees liable for violations, fraud, breach of contract, and other issues. Based on the finding of the jury and the final judgment of $32 million in favor of the city, ERSIC denied coverage to ProLiance and the employees.

ProLiance's policy states that no coverage will be available for loss when a claim was brought by knowing, intentional, dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal wrongful acts by the insured.

ERISC filed a complaint against ProLiance and the two employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In response, Vectren and Citizens filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit to protect their purported interests. Vectren and Citizens were not named as defendants in the original lawsuit by Huntsville, they did not attempt to intervene to protect their interests in the policy, nor was any judgment entered against them.

ERISC filed a motion to dismiss Vectren's complaint stating the two companies didn't have standing to assert any claims against ERISC; the trial court dismissed Vectren and Citizen's complaint.

Chief Judge John Baker wrote in the opinion that the court found no authority establishing that Vectren and Citizen's have standing to pursue a breach-of-contract claim against ERISC based on contractual duties owed to ProLiance. Vectren and Citizens did not suffer a loss as defined by the policy as a result of the City of Huntsville's lawsuit against ProLiance, nor has either company received a claim and incurred damages, judgments, or settlements as a result of a claim. Vectren and Citizens have no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation between ERISC and ProLiance because "any loss which Vectren and Citizens will purportedly suffer would merely be derivative as a result of their relationship to ProLiance."
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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT