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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

  2. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  3. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  4. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  5. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

ADVERTISEMENT