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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT