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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT