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

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT