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.


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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.