ILNews

Judges split on whether 2 insurers must pay for damage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from the majority’s holding that two insurers were financially responsible for the damages caused by a fractured storm pipe and subsequent flooding of a school. The judge believed that only one of the responsible party’s insurers had to pay for the property damage.

In Grange Mutual Casualty, et al. v. West Bend Mutual Ins., et al. No. 29A02-1008-PL-965, the two insurers disputed which policy was triggered after a school in which insured McCurdy Mechanical installed plumping, sewers, and drains was flooded due to a fractured storm drain pipe. At the time McCurdy performed the work on the school, it had a commercial general liability policy with West Bend Mutual Insurance. When the damaged pipe burst and caused the flooding in the school, Grange Mutual Casualty provided McCurdy’s CGL insurance. It was later discovered that the pipe was fractured by McCurdy sometime around spring of 2005, when West Bend's policy was active.

The two insurers jointly settled with the school’s insurance company for damages from the flood and then filed competing motions for summary judgment as to which insurer was responsible. The trial court denied Grange’s motion for summary judgment and granted West Bend’s motion for summary judgment.

The majority found that the parties incorrectly focused on the timing of the occurrences in the case and that they aren’t really relevant to the determination of coverage based on the insurance policies, which are very similar. What’s important is the timing of the property damage because the policies require that the damage occur during the policy period, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The majority held that in this case, it’s not an “either-or determination.” West Bend’s coverage was triggered by the original fracturing of the storm drain pipe which resulted in immediate damage to the pipe and subsequent flooding. They held that the policy covers all damages that flowed from the original damage, including the extensive flood damage. But Grange is also responsible for some damages, they held. Coverage under the Grange policy was triggered when the flooding occurred during its policy period, regardless of when the original negligence took place, wrote the judge. The majority remanded for the trial court to apportion damages accordingly.

Judge Melissa May agreed with the majority that West Bend’s policy covers all damages that flowed from the original damage, but disagreed that Grange’s policy also covers the flood damage at issue.

“There is nothing to ‘apportion.’ The majority is correct that the West Bend policy covers ‘all damages,’ and I would accordingly decline to hold there could be damages in addition to ‘all damages’ or that any such additional damages could be assigned on remand to Grange,” she wrote. “I believe ‘all’ means ‘all,’ and I would accordingly reverse and direct summary judgment for Grange.”

Judge May cited Parr v. Gonzalez, 669 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), to support her conclusion that the Grange policy isn’t implicated. Parr held that when damages arise from “discrete and identifiable events that occur within the policy period, the actual-injury trigger theory allows those policies on the risk at the point of initial damage to pay for all the damages that follow.”

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT