ILNews

Insurer needs notice of claim to defend it

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An insurer can't defend a claim of which it has no knowledge and its duty to defend doesn't begin until it receives basic notice information to allow it to defend a claim, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court. The high court affirmed today summary judgment in favor of an insurer on the question of when its duty to defend began in an environmental claim filed by a policy holder because the duty to defend didn't begin until the policy holder complied with the policy's notice requirement.

The question in Dreaded Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., et al., No. 49S02-0805-CV-244, is whether St. Paul Guardian Insurance was liable for environmental damage claims against Dreaded Inc. that it was unaware of for more than three years. Dreaded received notice from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management requiring it to investigate contamination at a former business site. Dreaded notified St. Paul of the IDEM claim 3 ½ years later and asked St. Paul to take up its defense and reimburse the company for defense costs incurred up to that point. St. Paul agreed to defend Dreaded beginning at the point it received notice, but not for the 3 ½ years prior to receiving notice. Dreaded filed suit seeking declaratory relief establishing St. Paul's duty to fully defend and indemnify against the IDEM action and damages from the breach of contract of St. Paul's duty to defend. St. Paul countered it required prompt notice of damage claims and it wasn't liable for payments made without its consent. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of St. Paul.

Dreaded argued on appeal it's entitled to recover its pre-notice defense costs unless St. Paul can prove it was prejudiced by the company's late notice and St. Paul failed to present evidence showing actual prejudice. However, the facts of this case will result in the same outcome regardless of whether St. Paul has to show it was prejudiced, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. Dreaded's claim for damages is predicated solely on its contention St. Paul breached its duty to defend them against a claim or suit for injury or damage covered by their policy.

But an insurer can't defend a claim if it doesn't know about, and until it receives the basic information needed to allow it to defend a claim, the insurer can't be held accountable for breaching this duty, wrote the justice. St. Paul's duty to defend didn't arise until Dreaded complied with the policy's notice requirement, so the insurer is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

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