ILNews

COA splits on whether Dreaded decision requires judgment for insurer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a dispute over whether an insurer was required to pay pre-notice costs for environmental cleanup, the Indiana Court of Appeals was divided over whether the Indiana Supreme Court ruling Dreaded Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance was distinguishable from the instant case.

Maplehurst Farms sought to recover from Travelers Insurance Companies and other insurers environmental cleanup costs it incurred after an underground storage tank it installed on property it later sold to Dean Foods Co. leaked petroleum constituents in 2000. Maplehurst settled with Dean’s regarding costs in December 2002, but the company did not give notice to its insurers until March, April, and May 2003. When it learned of the environmental issues, Maplehurst tried to locate its insurance information but had difficulty doing so because so many people who had been with the company when it was still operating were now deceased.  

Travelers denied coverage of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management claim, citing among other things, lack of timely notice of claims and that Maplehurst had paid out money on claims to Dean’s without its consent. The trial court found Travelers breached its duty to defend under its policy and that the case was distinguished from Dreaded, 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind, 2009), because Travelers refused to defend Maplehurst once tender was made. In Dreaded, St. Paul Guardian Insurance agreed to defend Dreaded for the time after it received notice, but not prior to that.

The trial court’s ruling also noted that Dreaded determined that delayed tender may be “legally excused” in certain circumstances and that the ruling didn’t discuss or address indemnity costs.

In Travelers Insurance Companies, et al. v. Maplehurst Farms, Inc., et al., No. 49A04-1006-PL-394, Judges John Baker and Cale Bradford reversed, finding the lower court’s order directing Travelers to reimburse Maplehurst for the pre-notice, pre-tender costs is contrary to the fundamental holding in Dreaded that such costs cannot be recovered.

“Granted, when an insured is late in providing notice of a claim and the insurer responds by denying all coverage, prejudice to the insurer caused by the late notice is a potentially relevant consideration as to the insurer’s post-notice obligations. However, regardless of the relevance that prejudice plays in the context of post-notice obligations, an insured is not entitled to recover pre-notice costs. Simply put, an insurer’s duties under the policy do not arise unless and until the insurer has knowledge of the claim,” wrote Judge Baker.

Judge Melissa May dissented, declining to adopt the majority’s “apparent premise” that after Dreaded, reasonableness is no longer a permissible consideration in the analysis of late-notice disputes. This premise is inconsistent with Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257, 265-66 (Ind. 1984), and nothing relied on by the majority in Dreaded suggests that reasonableness must, should, or can be disregarded, she wrote.

The majority reversed and found Travelers’ to only be liable for the costs and expenses under the insurance policy that Maplehurst incurred after it gave notice of the claim. The judges also upheld the denial of Maplehurst’s requests for attorney fees.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT