ILNews

Insurer doesn’t have to cover cleanup of California sites

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Relying on California law and a case from 2006, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that an insurer of former film-processing sites has no obligation to indemnify Thomson Inc. for the remediations of three California locations.

Thomson acquired the assets of Technicolor Inc., which included three contaminated former film-processing sites in Hollywood, North Hollywood and West Drayton, Calif. Local environmental authorities ordered Thomson to cleanup the sites. Remediation has already cost more than $6.5 million for the sites.

Thomson sought indemnification from Continental, which insured Technicolor from 1969 to 1974. It claims the umbrella policy from Continental covers losses from orders from administrative agencies; Continental claimed the policy is limited to losses resulting from courtroom litigation.

Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele agreed with Continental’s argument, which the Court of Appeals upheld. Relying on California insurance law and CDM Investors v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, 674 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), the judges found that the policy’s definition of “ultimate net loss” does not expand the general definition of “damages” so that administrative orders are covered.

“Following the California Court of Appeal’s decision in CDM Investors, we conclude that the Umbrella Policy limits Continental’s indemnity obligations to ‘damages.’ Consequently, Continental has no obligation to indemnify Thomson for the remediations of the Hollywood, North Hollywood, and West Drayton sites as a matter of law,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in Thomson, Inc., n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc., Technicolor, Inc., and Technicolor Limited v. Continental Casualty Co.; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. & Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Am., et al., 49A05-1201-PL-24. 

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