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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT