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. 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