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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT