ILNews

COA rejects insurer’s new arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An insurance provider was unsuccessful in its attempt to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to change its mind that the company has a duty to indemnify or defend.

In the rehearing of Peabody Energy Corp., Peabody Coal Co., LLC and Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Richard R. Roark and Beelman Truck Co., and North American Capacity Ins. Co., 14A01-1112-CT-555, the COA affirmed its August 2012 opinion in all regards. The court rejected the insurance provider’s petition on the grounds that North American Capacity Insurance Co. was making arguments in its petition for a rehearing that it did not raise on its appeal.

The suit started when Richard Roark, a truck driver for Beelman, was injured while delivering a load of ash to Peabody’s mine. He filed a compliant against Peabody alleging the company’s negligence caused the injuries to his left foot.

Peabody, which had a Master Performance Agreement with Beelman, demanded coverage from the trucking company’s insurance provider, NAC.

After the trial court granted a summary judgment to NAC, Peabody appealed. The COA reversed the lower court, finding Peabody was an additional insured under the policy because Roark’s injuries were directly related to his work for Beelman.

In the petition for rehearing, NAC asserted that the opinion does not explain whether it had a duty to indemnify or only a duty to defend. Also NAC claimed that an open-ended obligation to indemnify Peabody would be premature because the underlying case against the energy company is still ongoing.

 The COA dismissed those arguments.

“Although NAC’s appellee’s brief acknowledged the general principle that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify, NAC made no argument distinguishing between its potential obligation to defend and its potential obligation to indemnify Peabody based on the facts of the case or the language of the Policy,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote for the court. “Nor did NAC argue that it would be premature to determine whether it owed a duty to indemnify at this stage in the proceedings.”
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT