ILNews

High court denies rehearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split Indiana Supreme Court has denied rehearing a case involving faulty workmanship being covered under a commercial general liability policy.

On Dec. 17, Justices Brent Dickson, Robert Rucker, and Steven David denied Continental Casualty Company’s petition for rehearing. In October, the justices were divided on whether an “occurrence” under a CGL covers an insured contract for faulty workmanship of its subcontractors. Justices Dickson, Rucker, and Theodore Boehm reversed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurers on grounds that there wasn’t property damage and thus there was no “occurrence” or “property damage.”

The majority aligned themselves with the jurisdictions that held improper or faulty workmanship does constitute an accident as long as the resulting damage is an event that occurs without expectation or foresight. They remanded for further proceedings because none of the parties’ Trial Rule 56 materials addressed the question of whether the faulty workmanship was the product of intentional or unintentional conduct, so the trial court reached no conclusion on that. If the subcontractor’s defective work was done intentionally instead of “without intention or design” then it is not an accident, the majority decided.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan dissented from the October ruling and also dissented from the denial to grant Continental’s petition for rehearing. In his three-page dissent, Justice Sullivan reiterated his belief that the damage isn’t covered under a CGL policy. He pointed to a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Beazer Homes Investments, LLC 594 F.3d 441 (6th Circ. 2010), in which that court addressed this exact issue of Indiana law. He believed the Circuit Court more accurately analyzed Indiana law on the subject than the Supreme Court’s opinion. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that because it is neither “property damage” nor an “occurrence”, faulty workmanship causing damage to the insured property isn’t covered by CGL polices under Indiana law.

Justice Sullivan and Chief Justice Shepard, who joined him in the dissent, agreed with the alternatives available to provide appropriate recourse to general contractors who are faced with damage from faulty workmanship, including requiring performance bonds.

Also on Dec. 17, the justices issued an opinion on rehearing from Indiana Insurance in the same matter. They granted the rehearing to address the timeliness of Sheehan Construction Company’s notice to Indiana Insurance. Neither the Indiana Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court addressed this issue on appeal. The justices unanimously affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer on this matter.

“In this case Sheehan conceded it did not give Indiana Insurance timely notice of Sheehan’s claims under the CGL policy. Because prejudice to the insurer was therefore presumed, Indiana Insurance carried its initial burden of demonstrating it had no liability to Sheehan under the policy of insurance. Sheehan has not directed this Court to any evidence it presented to the trial court rebutting the presumption of prejudice,” wrote Justice Rucker.

In all other respects, the original opinion was affirmed.

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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT