William Klepper vs. Ace American Insurance, Inc. - 9/24/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  September 24, 2013 
2:00 PM  EST

2 p.m., 15A05-1212-CC-645. In 2005, William Klepper brought a class action lawsuit against Pernod Ricard, LLC, d/b/a Seagrams Lawrenceburg Distillery (“Pernod”) alleging that emissions from the distillery had discolored and degraded the exterior of nearby buildings.  ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”) and XL Insurance Company (“XL”) insured Pernod.  In 2009, the Class, Pernod, and XL entered into a settlement agreement, which called for ACE to contribute $3,000,000 toward the $5,200,000 judgment and released Pernod and XL from liability.  ACE did not consent to the settlement, and Klepper, as Pernod’s assignee, sued ACE.  Eventually a special master was appointed to decide six coverage-related issues.  After the special master concluded that Pernod breached the insurance contract by entering into the agreed judgment without ACE’s consent, the trial court adopted the special master’s report and entered final judgment on the six issues decided by the special master.  Klepper now appeals, and ACE cross-appeals.
The Scheduled Panel Members are Judges Barnes, Crone, and, Pyle. Location: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom, State House, Room 413, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
 

Back to Events
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT