ILNews

COA: Duty to defend not triggered

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Frustrated with the parties involved in the litigation, the Indiana Court of Appeals April 17 reversed a trial court's ruling in a case involving public-access laws, fraud, and an insurer's duty to defend.

In Allianz Insurance Company, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al., No. 49A05-0704-CV-216, Chief Judge John Baker wrote the unanimous opinion regarding the "monstrosity of a litigation that has crossed state lines" is a straightforward dispute about when and whether an insurer's duty to defend had been triggered. The judge cited the court's frustration that the parties forced Indiana courts to take part in a race to the finish with Illinois courts.

Allianz began providing insurance to Guidant and its subsidiaries (the policyholders) in 1997. In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Ancure Device, a Y-shaped graft inserted inside the major aortic blood vessel to support a weakened vessel wall; it was made by a Guidant subsidiary.

When Guidant provided its application for coverage from Sept. 1, 2000, to Sept. 1, 2001, it noted it was unaware of any defects in its products that would give rise to liability claims. Allianz approved the year's insurance coverage, including any entitlement to a defense from its insurers is subject to a self-insured retention (SIR). Once Guidant absorbs the expenses up to the amount of the SIR, the insurer's obligation is then triggered.

Guidant's policy had a SIR of $5 million per occurrence and $8 million in the aggregate. A batch clause included in the policy said when all losses come from one batch - products with the same known defect identified by the same advisory memorandum sent to health professionals warning of such defects - then all losses will be considered one occurrence.

In March 2001, Guidant announced a voluntary recall of the Ancure Device, and the FDA investigated the company's failure to make certain disclosures about the device's performance. In November 2003, Allianz filed a complaint against Guidant in Illinois seeking damages and rescission of the policy for fraud. That same month, Guidant filed a complaint in Indiana against the insurers alleging they breached their duty to defend and that Guidant is entitled to coverage for those losses.

In Indiana, the trial court denied Allianz's motion for partial summary judgment on coverage issues relating to the SIR because Guidant proved the applicable $5 million SIR had been met for the year through the batch clause; Allianz didn't appeal this decision.

The trial court also entered an order striking the John P. Killacky affidavit, which supported the insurer's fraud defense. The court granted Guidant's motion for partial summary judgment against Allianz on its claim for breach of duty to defend. The insurer appealed these two rulings.

Guidant appealed the trial court denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings on Allianz's fraud defense, which ruled the alleged fraud is best answered by a trier of fact.

Before ruling on the issues on appeal, Chief Judge Baker first addressed the public-access issue of this case. The trial court entered a protective order sealing the case from public view, which would have been allowed had the trial court followed Administrative Rule 9(H)(2) and conducted a public hearing first. Sealing the case was improper and violated Indiana's public-access laws regarding court records, he wrote. And because there is no confidential information in the record, briefs, or issues, the appellate court did not hold back from giving a full description of the facts, arguments, or resolution of the issues.

On the issue of Allianz's fraud defense, Guidant argued because the insurer did not rescind the policy and retained the premiums received, it can't argue the policy is void because of fraud. Allianz incorrectly relied on Indiana and Illinois caselaw to show it has the right to partial rescission by retaining all the premiums and rescinding only part of the policy. Neither Indiana nor Illinois provides the option of partial rescission to a party asserting fraud, and thus, the trial court should have granted Guidant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Allianz's fraud defense, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

Also, because this defense is no longer a part of the appeal, the court didn't address Allianz's challenge of the trial court order striking the Killacky Affidavit, which supported the fraud defense.

Allianz argued summary judgment in favor of Guidant on its duty to defend claim was an error because its duty to defend was suspended when Allianz filed the Illinois action. Chief Judge Baker wrote while it is true the act of filing a declaratory action protects the insurer's right to raise coverage defenses, and it's free to disassociate itself from the case and seek reimbursement for its expenses incurred up to that point in time, the mere act of filing a declaratory action doesn't suspend the duty to defend. If such a rule existed, insurers would file a declaratory action in every case, he wrote.

However, the trial court did err in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Guidant on this issue. Indiana law states that only after a SIR is exhausted does an insurer's duty to defend kick in. The trial court erred in concluding the mere potential for coverage is enough. Guidant argued that the batch clause was satisfied for the year in question and they reached their $5 million SIR. The company had mailed "Dear Doctor" letters in March 2001 and May 2001 informing doctors about issues raised regarding the Ancure Device and various recalls, but the letters sought to ensure the medical community the products were safe, not warning of dangers. As such, the letters don't qualify as advisory memorandum needed to trigger the batch clause, Chief Judge Baker wrote.

The appellate court reversed the grant of partial summary judgment on the duty to defend claims; however, because Allianz did not appeal the order, the court is unable to direct summary judgment in the insurer's favor.

The appeals court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.
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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT