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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT