ILNews

High court rules in favor of insurers in silica case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Companies that owned the assets of an industrial blast machine can't seek coverage from the insurers who issued liability policies for previous owners of the machine, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

At issue in Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., et al. v. United States Filter Corp., et al., No. 49S02-0712-CV-596, is whether or not United States Filter Corp. and other companies that at one time held the assets of the Wheelabrator blast machine had the liability insurance coverage rights passed to them through the same corporate transactions that brought them the blast machine assets.

The trial court agreed with U.S. Filter and the other companies that the rights passed to the current holders of the assets, granting them summary judgment.

But the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and directed judgment for the insurers. Each of the insurance policies involved in this case contained a provision barring assignment of the policy without the insurer's consent. Even though the company holding the assets to the blast machine may have written an insurance agreement to transfer the policy, the insurers never consented to make the assignment valid, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The asset holders of the blast machine argue that certain claims under the policies did transfer to them as choses in action despite consent-to-agreement provisions. Courts have often recognized an exception to the enforcement of consent-to-agreement clauses for assignments made after a loss has occurred, wrote the chief justice, because after a loss occurs, the indemnity policy is a vested claim against the insurer that can be freely assigned or sold like any other chose in action.

Under the occurrence-based comprehensive general liability policies, the question in the instant case is whether occurred - but not yet reported - losses form the basis of choses in action that would transfer the insurance policies.

The high court read the consent-to-assignment provisions in the policies to apply to coverage transfers of any scope "because it is hard to see a practical difference between the assignment of the entire policy and the assignment of a single claim," wrote the chief justice. A chose in action is only transferable in these circumstances if it is assigned at a moment when the policyholder could have brought its own action against the insurer for coverage; under the liability policies in this case, that moment doesn't happen until a claim is made against the insured. None of the parties in this case contend anyone knew of the alleged injuries from the silica exposure when the transactions took place transferring the blast machine's assets, wrote Chief Justice Shepard. As a result, the companies weren't entitled to coverage under their predecessors' insurance policies.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT