ILNews

COA: insurer owed duty to defend

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
After nearly 10 years of litigation, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company because the company couldn't show it was prejudiced by a late notice from its insured as a matter of law.

In the unanimous 27-page opinion, Tri-Etch Inc., et al v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 49A02-0709-CV-827, the appellate court ruled in favor of the appellants-plaintiffs in this appeal - Tri-Etch, which provides security services; the estate of Michael Young; and Scottsdale Insurance Co., which provided insurance to Tri-Etch with a $1 million limit of liability.

The back-and-forth litigation between Tri-Etch, the estate, and Scottsdale and Cincinnati Insurance Co., which also provided a commercial general liability (CGL) and umbrella policy to Tri-Etch, began in 1999 after the estate filed a complaint against Tri-Etch.

Tri-Etch provided security for Muncie Liquors and would call a store's general manager if the store's night alarm wasn't set within 30 minutes of closing. Michael Young, an employee at the liquor store, was found beaten outside of the store after Tri-Etch called the store's owner at 3:15 a.m. The store closed at midnight and the alarm wasn't set, but Tri-Etch didn't call the general manager to make sure everything was OK at the store until 3:15 a.m. Young subsequently died of his injuries, and the complaint alleged he would have lived had Tri-Etch called at 12:30 a.m. once it realized the alarm wasn't set.

At issue in this case are two orders granted by Marion County trial courts. In 2006, the first order granted partial summary judgment in favor of Tri-Etch and the appellants on the bad faith counterclaim brought by Cincinnati. It granted partial summary judgment to the appellants finding that Young's death is covered under Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies and denied Scottsdale and Cincinnati's motions for summary judgment regarding Scottsdale's claim to recover 50 percent of the legal fees and costs Scottsdale paid to defend Tri-Etch.

Cincinnati claimed it didn't learn of the litigation until 2004, just before the claim was to go to trial. The insurance company informed Tri-Etch that the estate's claim wasn't covered by either of its policies with Cincinnati, so it wouldn't be responsible to pay a portion of the $2.5 million in damages the estate won against Tri-Etch.

The second order issued in 2007 granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati and ordered that Tri-Etch's late notice to Cincinnati was unreasonably late as a matter of law, and due to the prejudice arising from the untimely notice, the company owes no coverage or indemnity to Tri-Etch.

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that Cincinnati wasn't prejudiced by Tri-Etch's allegedly late notice because the insurance company consistently maintained Tri-Etch wasn't entitled to coverage for the claim, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. As a result, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati in the second order and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the appellants.

Regarding the first order, the judges concluded Tri-Etch is entitled to coverage pursuant to both Cincinnati's CGL and umbrella policies, requiring Cincinnati to be responsible for $1.5 million in damages the estate won.

The court also remanded the issue of Cincinnati's liability for defense costs to Scottsdale because Scottsdale defended Tri-Etch from the start of the claim.

"Because we have concluded that coverage existed under Cincinnati's policies, each of which contained duty-to-defend provisions, it logically follows that Cincinnati must pay a portion of the costs Scottsdale incurred while defending Tri-Etch during the liability litigation," the chief judge wrote.

The appellate court remanded the issue to the trial court to determine when Cincinnati received notice of the claim to determine the amount of reasonable defense costs Cincinnati should pay.
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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT