ILNews

COA orders trial over 1 issue in contaminated development land suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a trial on the issue of whether the known loss doctrine would bar coverage of an insurance policy held by the owner of land sold for a housing development that later was found to have been contaminated with toxic waste. A builder sued the landowner, claiming he knew of the potential contamination and failed to inform the builder.

George Kopetsky and Durabuilders, now KB Home Indiana Inc., entered into an agreement in 1998 where KB Home would purchase lots in a housing development being developed by Kopetsky. He indicated in the agreement that he was unaware of any contamination in Cedar Park at the time. KB Home became aware that some of the lots it had purchased contained contaminants from a nearby business and filed its lawsuit in 2007 against Kopetsky and those responsible for the contamination.

KB Home alleged that Kopetsky knew in 2002 some of the lots were contaminated but waited until 2004 to tell KB home of the problem. KB purchased more than 60 lots during that time.

Kopetsky’s commercial general liability insurance carrier, Indiana Insurance Co., in 2009 sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him in the lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the insurance company. His wife, Patricia, was substituted as a party after Kopetsy passed away in 2010.

The case, Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc., 49A02-1304-PL-340, brings up an issue of first impression. The policies preclude coverage for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of the liability in a contract or agreement. The judges agreed with Kopetsky that while he may be held liable for entering into the agreement and breaching it, this is not the same thing as assuming liability pursuant to it.

“Although our research has uncovered no Indiana case precisely on point, today we explicitly endorse the proposition that ‘assumed’ liability is liability originally incurred by a third party but then taken on by another,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “Today we join those jurisdictions who have held that contractual liability exclusions in CGL policies bar coverage not for liability incurred by a contract breach but, rather, for liability assumed from a third party, which seems to be the majority position by a wide margin.”

The judges held that KB Home successfully alleged “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” pursuant to the policies, and that the policies’ “expected and intended” and “contractual liability” exclusions do not work to bar coverage. But the designated evidence generates a question of fact as to whether the known loss doctrine would bar coverage. There is evidence showing that Kopetsky was aware of the contamination in Cedar Park before the effective dates of the first of his policies with Indiana Insurance.  The case is remanded for trial on the known loss doctrine issue.
 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT