The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that the insurers of Cinergy, which was bought out by Duke Energy in 2006, have
no duty to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide coverage in connection with Cinergy's alleged liability for violations
of the Clean Air Act at certain plants. The dispute over the insurers' obligations has been ongoing for years and previously
litigated twice in the state's appellate courts.
The Indiana Supreme Court in Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd., 865 N.E.2d
571 (Ind. 2007), (Cinergy I), determined the insurers in that case had no duty to defend or indemnify Cinergy in
connection with the power company's alleged violations of the Clean Air Act based on the policies. The policy requirement
that covered damages resulting from the happening of an occurrence doesn't mean that coverage extended to damages that
result from the prevention of an occurrence, the high court ruled. In Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
873 N.E.2d 105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), (Cinergy II), the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of partial summary judgment
for the insurers after concluding Cinergy failed to establish that there was a "potential occurrence" during the
1983-1984 policy term year at the Cayuga Plant. The COA concluded there was neither an actual or potential occurrence under
the policy at issue as that term was interpreted in Cinergy I.
In the instant case, Cinergy Corp., Duke Energy Indiana Inc., and Duke Energy Ohio Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance
Co., et al., No. 32A04-0810-CV-622, St. Paul and other insurers moved for summary judgment seeking an order declaring
they have no obligation to defend or indemnify Cinergy for any of the claims being adjudicated in an ongoing lawsuit filed
in 1999 in federal court for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at six power plants. Cinergy wanted the issue of indemnity
determination postponed until the federal litigation was resolved; the trial court denied that and ruled the insurers didn't
have any obligation to Cinergy for these violations.
Relying on Cinergy I and Cinergy II, the Court of Appeals determined the relief demanded in the underlying
federal litigation isn't covered under the insurers' policies. In May 2009, the District Court ordered three units
at a Terre Haute facility shut down, ordered Duke to pay fines on another plant, and permanently surrender sulfur dioxide
emission allowances in an amount equal to the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions from those three units during a specific
time period.
The order included remedies designed to prevent future environmental harm, which aren't covered damages under the insurers'
policies, per Cinergy I, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.
"Because preventing future emissions and environmental harm is not an occurrence under the terms of the Insurers'
policies, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Insurers have no obligation to defend, indemnify,
or otherwise provide coverage to Cinergy for the claims being litigated in the underlying federal litigation concerning Cinergy's
violations of the Clean Air Act," wrote Judge Mathias.
Penalties and attorneys' fees are also not covered by the insurance policies, as those issues were settled in Cinergy
I and Cinergy II, he wrote. The Court of Appeals also determined the trial court didn't err in denying the
postponement of the indemnity determination pending dispositive developments in the federal litigation. Cinergy didn't
cite any Indiana authority requiring a court to postpone a coverage determination until after the underlying liability trial
has finished.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.