United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Warsaw Chemical Co. - 4/30/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  April 30, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 49A04-1203-CT-97. In this litigation, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Warsaw Chemical Company seeks indemnity from its insurer Appellant/Cross-Appellee United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (“USF&G”) for an environmental cleanup. USF&G appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Warsaw Chemical, who also cross-appeals, challenging certain rulings in favor of USF&G and arguing an alternate ground on which it was entitled to summary judgment. USF&G contends that the trial court erred in ruling that a (1) 1992 release executed by Warsaw Chemical did not cover certain insurance policies, (2) Warsaw Chemical’s claim was not time-barred, (3) coverage existed under the personal injury provisions of its policy with Warsaw Chemical, and (4) all of Warsaw Chemical’s costs were covered even if coverage did exist. Warsaw Chemical responds to all of these arguments and additionally claims that (1) the Court of Appeals should affirm for the alternate reason that coverage exists under property damage provisions of the relevant policies and (2) it is entitled to prejudgment interest.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT