ILNews

Court affirms insurer must cover environmental cleanup costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed an order that an insurer pay post-notice costs of nearly $34,000 to its insured in an environmental cleanup in Mooresville.

Majestic made concrete blocks in Mooresville and installed a large underground storage tank and dispensing pumps to provide diesel fuel for its delivery vehicles. When it decided to remove the tank, a test in December 1997 revealed the samples were potentially contaminated. Majestic bought a commercial general liability policy from State Auto for one year that began Jan. 1, 1998. Majestic learned in mid-January that the site is contaminated. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management didn’t order a site investigation until 2006; Majestic filed its claim with State Auto in 2009 for coverage of the cleanup costs.

State Auto denied the claim based on the “known loss” and “late notice.” The trial court found the coverage under the policy was not barred by the known loss or voluntary payment provisions and coverage was for post-notice costs only. Majestic also got prejudgment interest on the $33,678.85 costs starting Oct. 11, 2011.

Majestic also received reimbursement of 91 percent of its reimbursable costs from IDEM’s Excess Liability Trust Fund, minus the ELTF’s $35,000 deductible.

In Meridian Mutual Insurance Company, n/k/a State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Majestic Block & Supply, Inc., n/k/a Tutewiler Corporation, 49A05-1210-PL-533, the COA found Majestic did not have actual knowledge that a loss had occurred in order to prevent State Auto from covering some of the cleanup. When it purchased the policy, testing results had not been received. Nor is the recovery barred by the late notice doctrine, the judges held, citing Dreaded Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1273 (Ind. 2009). The order to pay only post-notice costs was appropriate as was prejudgment interest.

The COA also rejected State Auto’s claim that Majestic received a double recovery.

“We decline to reverse based on a characterization of the payments from the ELTF or Majestic’s responsibility for its deductible amount as pre-notice or post-notice. The ELTF is not an insurance contract pursuant to which the date of notice might be determinative of coverage. Rather, it was established to, among other things, provide ‘a source of money to satisfy liabilities incurred by owners and operators of underground petroleum storage tanks under IC 13-23-13-8 for corrective action,’” Judge Melissa May wrote. “State Auto cannot avoid coverage for the ELTF deductible amount by assigning ELTF funds to a period before its policy took effect.”

The judges declined to award attorney fees to Majestic.

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT