ILNews

Court clarifies ‘known claim’ exclusion applies in insurance coverage dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted rehearing to a case involving a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination and found that the “known claim” exclusion applies, not the known loss doctrine.

Patricia Kopetsky and Indiana Insurance Co. sought clarification from the appeals court regarding the possible finding that George Kopetsky knew of contamination in a housing development prior to obtaining CGL coverage from Indiana Insurance.

In June, the judges ordered a trial on the issue of whether the known loss doctrine would bar coverage by Indiana Insurance. George Kopetsky sold land to KB Home Indiana for a housing development. It’s alleged that he knew as early as May 2002 that some of the lots were contaminated. He obtained coverage from Indiana Insurance in April 2002 that was in effect for a four-year period.

The judges addressed the legal effect of Indiana Insurance’s knowledge of the contamination. Patricia Kopetsky argued that under the common law known loss doctrine, even if a jury found George Kopetsky knew of the contamination before taking out the policy, coverage would only be barred during the first of the four coverage years. The insurer, citing the known claim exclusionary language from the policies, argued that there is no coverage for the final three years, regardless of what the jury finds regarding George Kopetsky’s knowledge. It also argued that a finding he knew of the loss before obtaining coverage would bar coverage in the first year as well.

“We agree with Indiana Insurance because we conclude that, consistent with the Indiana Supreme Court’s approach in Sheehan Construction Co., Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (2010), the Policies’ ‘known claim’ exclusionary language controls,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc., 49A02-1304-PL-340.

That case requires the court to start with the policy language and determine if the loss would be covered under the general coverage clause and if any exclusions apply that would preclude coverage, without regard to whether the loss constituted an “economic loss.”

George Kopetsky knew of the contamination no later than May 2002, so coverage is barred for the second through fourth years, regardless of the jury’s finding of any prior knowledge. Any finding of knowledge of contamination prior to the first year of coverage only applies to the first year, Bradford wrote.

The original decision is affirmed in all other respects.  
 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT