ILNews

High court addresses provision for 1st time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for an insurance company, finding the exclusion in the policy for injuries covered by workers’ compensation doesn’t apply.

The high court was asked for the first time to review a provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. The provision states that anyone contracting for more than $1,000 of work may be liable to the same extent as the contractor for injuries under the Worker’s Compensation Act if the person hiring the contractor doesn’t verify that the contractor has workers’ compensation insurance liability.

Farmers Rick and Katrina Taylor hired Sherlock Contract Painting. One of Sherlock’s employees, Christopher Collis, was injured on the job. He discovered Sherlock didn’t have workers’ compensation benefits, which the Taylors didn’t verify before hiring Sherlock. Collis then sued the Taylors for benefits under Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-14(b).

The Taylors were insured with Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. and had a farm personal liability policy for “all risk” coverage. Everett Cash denied coverage for Collis’ accident. The Taylors then sued for breach of contract. The trial judge denied summary judgment for Everett Cash; a split Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

The Taylors argued Collis’ claim is a premises liability claim, so their policy should cover it. Everett Cash argued Collis’ claim is for workers’ compensation benefits, which are excluded under the policy. It claimed the occurrence under the policy must be an accident, and that the claim arose because of the Taylors’ failure to verify workers’ compensation benefits.

In Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rick and Katrina Taylor, No. 02S03-0909-CV-395, the Supreme Court ruled the claim was a result of an accident, so it was an occurrence as defined by the policy. The justices also found the language in the policy that Everett Cash claims to exclude this coverage to be ambiguous. It’s possible to read the language to mean that if not for I.C. Section 22-3-2-14(b), Collis wouldn’t have asserted the Taylors were responsible for his injuries and so Everett Cash wouldn’t have to pay, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

It’s also possible to interpret the exclusion language as to apply to employers who are directly within the application of the Worker’s Compensation Act. Farm or agricultural employees are excluded under the act and the Taylors aren’t required to have workers’ compensation benefits because they own and work a farm.

One could conclude that the exemption only clarifies that the policy provides no coverage in the conventional worker’s compensation context when an employee seeks the benefits payable by an insured under the law.

“It would be beyond the ordinary understanding of the worker’s compensation system to extend the exclusion to the matter-of-first-impression scenario here – where a claim is filed against an insured by an injured worker in the employ of a third party who did not comply with its obligations under the Act,” wrote the justice. “Given that the Taylors could not have even purchased worker’s compensation insurance to protect themselves from claims by Sherlock’s employees, it is hard to imagine them thinking that an exclusion regarding worker’s compensation could preclude them from having protection from a lawsuit by someone injured in an accident on their property.”

The justices held for an insurance policy to exclude such a claim as the one in the instant case, the exclusion must be more explicit than the language used in the Everett Cash policy.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT