ILNews

Court rules on corporate insurance policy issues

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
One of the first things you'll notice about an Indiana Court of Appeals decision issued today is the number of attorneys and parties on the case.

The first four pages of the 29-page ruling in Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al. v. U.S. Filter Corp., list the parties and respective attorneys. Those include 13 appellant insurance companies and organizations, two appellees-plaintiffs, and three amici curiae parties from Indianapolis; Washington, D.C.; New York, Chicago; and parts of Michigan.

Issues addressed in this case are listed in the opinion as: 1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that U.S. Filter acquired the rights to and is entitled to seek insurance coverage under Insurers' policies when the relevant corporate transactions did not assign rights under those policies; 2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that U.S. Filter is not, as a matter of law, precluded from seeking coverage under Insurers' policies notwithstanding U.S. Filter's noncompliance with the "consent-to-assignment" provision; and 3. Whether the trial court erred in granting U.S. Filter rights under Insurers' policies, but summarily denying Waste Management those same rights where no party requested such relief and no supportive evidence was designated.

Today's decision affirms and vacates the decision in part, remanding back to the trial court level.

"In a nutshell, this is a big win for Indiana policyholders," said Indianapolis attorney Brent Huber with Ice Miller, an attorney representing appellee Waste Management Holdings. "This often arises when one company buys another and tries to assign insurance to the buyer. You can still have coverage and the buying and selling of companies as corporate America often does, doesn't end liability coverage."

Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge James Kirsch delves into a case from Marion Superior Court that involves product liability insurance policies, corporate transactions going back to the 1930s, contract-based claims involving chose in action, and ultimately related public policy and Indiana case law going back to the late 1800s.

At the ground level, this dispute arises from U.S. Filter and Waste Management's efforts to assert rights under insurance policies issued to predecessor or affiliate companies, specifically relating to coverage for thousands of underlying bodily injury claims caused by exposure to silica working in the vicinity of a metal-cleaning air blast machine. Known as the "Wheelabrator," it produced silica dust that can cause a potentially deadly occupational lung disease if inhaled over time.

According to the appellate court, the significance of this litigation goes back to 1932 when the plaintiffs' predecessors first made the product now under ownership of U.S. Filter since 1996. Plaintiffs filed a breach of action complaint in 2004 for declaratory judgment, asserting they had rights under a policy issued under Travelers Casualty and Surety Company and a number of other insurance companies.

"This court has never addressed the question of when a chose in action becomes an enforceable right," Judge Kirsch wrote, dismissing a California Supreme Court ruling and ultimately relying on a U.S. Supreme Court cases to reach its decision. "Adopting the same principle, we hold that a chose in action arises under an occurrence-based insurance policy at the time of the covered loss - a conclusion that we reached many years ago."

With that, Judge Kirsch cited a century-old Indiana ruling (New v. German Ins. Co. of Freeport, 5 Ind. App. 82, 85,31, N.E. 475, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 1892)) that held after a loss has occurred, a policy becomes a chose in action assignable like any other.

On the consent to transfer issue, the court wrote that the plaintiffs' predecessors and affiliates had compensated the insurers for insuring the risk associated with the Wheelabrator blast operation.

"Thus, to now hold the Insurers responsible for the liability arising under that risk only imposes on the Insurers the liability that they agreed to insure and for which they were already compensated," the opinion states. "Indeed, any contrary holding would provide an unfair windfall for Insurers."

Judge Kirsch wrote that the court was also persuaded by the considerations offered by amicus curiae parties that "the smooth flow of assets from one entity to another by way of merger or acquisition is integral to the functioning of a modern free market economy."
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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT