ILNews

COA: Insurers have no duty to defend Cinergy

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT