DTCI: Dreaded v. St. Paul revisited

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Barbara Jones


The Indiana Supreme Court established a bright-line test for an insurer’s obligation to defend in Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1273 (Ind. 2009), holding that “an insurer cannot defend a claim of which it has no knowledge.” Thus, Dreaded’s three-year delay in providing notice to its insurer about an Indiana Department of Environmental Management demand that the insured investigate soil contamination at a former business site relieved the insurer of the obligation to reimburse defense and environmental investigation costs incurred by the policyholder without the insurer’s consent and before the insurer was notified about the claim. The Supreme Court held that the insurer’s duty to defend did not arise until it received notice of the claim and “prejudice is an irrelevant consideration.” Id.

In that case, the policyholder failed to notify its insurer for more than three years about the IDEM claim and sought to recover its pre-tender costs from the insurer. Once it received notice, St. Paul agreed to defend the policyholder from that point forward but expressly reserved the right to reimburse Dreaded for defense costs incurred pre-tender. The policyholder filed suit seeking a declaration that St. Paul had a duty to defend the entire claim, including the costs incurred before notice. Both parties filed summary judgment and the trial court granted St. Paul’s motion, concluding that a policyholder has a duty to tender claims in order to trigger an insurer’s duty to defend, a showing of prejudice to the insurer is not required, and even if prejudice was required, Dreaded’s three-year delay was unreasonable as a matter of law and gave rise to a presumption of prejudice to the insurer. Dreaded appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the presumption of prejudice was rebuttable and that Dreaded had designated sufficient evidence to raise a fact question whether St. Paul had been prejudiced by the delay. St. Paul petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which the court granted. The court ultimately held that, under the facts of the case, prejudice was irrelevant and St. Paul had no duty to defend until notified about the claim (a condition precedent to coverage). Id. n.1.

Recently, a policyholder brought suit attempting to revisit the issue of whether an insurer owes for pre-tender defense and indemnity costs. In Travelers Insurance Companies v. Maplehurst Farms, Inc., No. 49A04-1006-PL-394, Aug. 24, 2011 (reh’g pending). The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the policyholder’s request to distinguish the Indiana Supreme Court’s Dreaded decision. Maplehurst has requested reconsideration on rehearing and a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court is likely.

Maplehurst argued that the facts of this case are distinguishable in that the insurer in Dreaded did not attempt to avoid its coverage obligation altogether. Instead, St. Paul accepted the defense for post-tender costs and expenses and disclaimed coverage only for pre-tender fees and expenses. Another distinguishing feature was that Dreaded involved only pre-tender defense costs and environmental site investigation costs, while in Maplehurst, the policyholder also sought indemnity costs for a settlement agreement that it entered into before it gave notice to its insurers. In addition, Maplehurst attempted to distinguish the facts in Dreaded with a contention that the delay in notifying the insurer should have been “legally excused” because the policyholder had difficulty locating its insurance policies and that the insurer could not establish prejudice by the policyholder’s delay.

In a split opinion, the court rejected the policyholder’s arguments and found that Travelers had no duty to defend until it was notified about the IDEM claim and, furthermore, owed no duty to indemnify Maplehurst for the settlement that occurred before notice was given to the insurer.

The facts in Maplehurst, as discussed in the Court of Appeals opinion, are that Maplehurst owned and operated a dairy in Indianapolis from the 1930s to the late 1990s. An underground storage tank had been installed on the site and was used to store heating oil from the 1950s until the 1970s. In 1997, Maplehurst sold the site to Dean Foods, which continued to operate the business for several years. Dean Foods subsequently conveyed the property to a third party. Sometime in early 2000, a release of petroleum from the UST was discovered on the dairy site. Dean reported the leak to IDEM. In 2002, IDEM sent Maplehurst a letter demanding that it investigate and remediate the petroleum release. In September 2002, Maplehurst submitted a proposed corrective action plan to IDEM for remediation of this site. In the meantime, Dean Foods had already incurred substantial costs to respond to the release and demanded that Maplehurst reimburse it for those costs. Thereafter, Maplehurst negotiated a settlement agreement with Dean Foods in which Maplehurst agreed to pay $170,000 for remediation expenses that Dean Foods incurred.

On May 30, 2003, Maplehurst gave notice of the release from the UST to its insurance broker. On June 17, 2004, Travelers was copied on a letter to Maplehurst’s counsel to another insurer that notified Travelers for the first time that Maplehurst had received a demand from Dean Foods and, in fact, had settled the claim on Dec. 27, 2002. None of Maplehurst’s insurers had been made aware of the petroleum leak at an earlier time, and none of the insurers had any input, approval or participation in Maplehurst’s decision to enter into a settlement agreement with Dean Foods. Ultimately, Travelers denied coverage for the underlying IDEM claim because Travelers failed to receive timely notice, and on other grounds not at issue in the appeal.

Maplehurst filed suit against Travelers and other insurers to recover its pre-tender defense and site investigation expenses and indemnity costs for the settlement with Dean Foods. All of these costs were incurred by Maplehurst before notice to any of the insurers.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted Maplehurst’s motion for summary judgment finding that Travelers breached its duty to defend. The trial court distinguished the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Dreaded, reasoning that the Dreaded holding did not apply because Travelers, unlike the insurer in Dreaded, had refused to defend Maplehurst when it was notified about the claim. The trial court also determined that the delayed tender might be “legally excused” in certain circumstances such as when an insured has lost its insurance policy. The trial court further determined that Travelers was estopped from asserting its contractual defenses because it had breached its contract with Maplehurst by rejecting the defense when notified and for its delay in responding to its policyholder. Therefore, the trial court determined that Maplehurst could recover its pre-tender defense costs and indemnity costs for the settlement with Dean Foods, and also prejudgment interest. Travelers appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the insured was not entitled to recover pre-notice costs. The court noted that an insurer’s duties under the policy do not arise unless and until an insurer has knowledge of the claim (citing Dreaded at 1273). The court held that because all the costs and expenditures at issue in the appeal were incurred by Maplehurst before it notified Travelers of the claim, those costs could not be recovered.

The court also held that where an insured enters into a settlement agreement without the insurer’s consent – in violation of the voluntary payment provision – prejudice is irrelevant and that indemnity obligation cannot be recovered from the insurer. The court held that the trial court’s order directing Travelers to reimburse Maplehurst for the pre-notice, pre-tender costs is contrary to the fundamental holding in Dreaded that such costs cannot be recovered. The Court of Appeals noted that prejudice could be potentially relevant as to an insurer’s post-notice obligations but were irrelevant until an insurer has knowledge of the claim (citing Dreaded at 1273).

Moreover, the court rejected Maplehurst’s argument that its delay in giving notice should be “legally excused.” Maplehurst pointed out that its former chairman testified that he diligently searched for insurance policies after learning of the claim. However, the process was slow because Maplehurst had wound up its business operations in 1997 and the past president and risk manager had died before the claim arose. In essence, Maplehurst argued that its delay in giving notice should be legally excused because it could not find its agents, insurers or policies. The Maplehurst majority held that such difficulties did not “legally excuse” a three-year delay in providing notice to the insurer. Furthermore, the court stated that although the court had determined that an insurer has a limited duty to provide its insured with a copy of the policy upon request after a loss (citing Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Hughes, 943 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)), a policyholder’s inability to locate its policy – through no fault of the insurer – does not legally excuse a delay in providing notice to the insurer.

The majority opinion was authored by Judge John G. Baker, with Judge Cale Bradford concurring. Judge Melissa May dissented, rejecting the majority’s premise that “reasonableness” is no longer a consideration in late-notice disputes. May observed that it did not appear that a “reasonableness” argument was made by the insurer in Dreaded and that nothing in the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision indicated that the court was overruling Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 1984) (requiring a consideration of whether the insurer has been prejudiced by the delayed notice). May also noted that nothing in the Dreaded decision indicated that the insured offered an explanation for its delay in giving notice since there was no argument in Dreaded concerning that issue. May cited to the Indiana Supreme Court’s discussion concerning what the case was not about. (Dreaded did not contend that its failure to give notice was legally excused. 904 N.E.2d at 1272-1273.)

With respect to the Supreme Court’s citation to a legal excuse argument, the Dreaded court cited to the 7th Circuit Court decision in Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company v. Aires Environmental Services LTD., 259 F.3d 792 (2001) (Illinois law). Aires did not involve circumstances where the insured provided notice years after the claim while incurring significant legal fees, costs and entering into a settlement agreement. Instead, the facts are that the insured in that case gave notice to its insurer as soon as a claim was made and suit filed against it even though it had knowledge that an accident had occurred and suit had been filed against a different party. The plaintiff in that case did not add Aires as a party for nearly two years after the original suit was filed. There is nothing in that case discussing the failure of a policyholder to locate its insurance policies as grounds to excuse a condition precedent and an unreasonable delay in providing notice.

It remains to be seen whether this is an issue that the Indiana Supreme Court will revisit if a petition for transfer is filed in the future.•

Barbara Jones is a partner in the Indianapolis firm of Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer and is a member of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions in this article are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.