ILNews

Judges uphold insurers’ share of settlement liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A District judge did not err in how he apportioned liability among three insurers for payment of a settlement between an injured worker and a contractor, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday.

Indiana Steel Fabricating hired Central Steel Erectors as a subcontractor on a project. In the course of that work, Brian Colip, a Central Steel employee, fell from a roof and injured himself. He sued ISF and settled for $2.9 million. At issue before the 7th Circuit is how much, if any, should ISF’s insurers, Amerisure Insurance Co. and National Surety Corp., or Central Steel’s insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Co., be liable with regard to the settlement.

U.S. District Judge William Lawrence ultimately found Amerisure and Scottsdale liable for $1 million each and National liable for $900,000.

The appeal relates to Scottsdale’s obligation to contribute to the settlement under its umbrella policy. Central Steel had two policies through Scottsdale: a commercial general liability policy and an umbrella policy. Scottsdale claimed that the umbrella policy contains an explicit exclusion that exempts it from paying; Amerisure and National countered that Scottsdale is estopped from relying on that provision and it doesn’t apply here.

The exclusion says the insurance doesn’t apply to “bodily injury” arising out of a claim or suit brought by any insured against another insured. The judges found a straightforward way of reading this exclusion is as one that applies to lawsuits between two parties covered by the same insurance, and it reflects the intent of Scottsdale and Central Steel not to purchase insurance that would cover personal injury lawsuits between insured parties under the umbrella policy.

The exclusion applies to this case, the 7th Circuit held, so Scottsdale doesn’t have to draw on the umbrella policy to fund the settlement. The appellate court also rejected Amerisure and National’s arguments that Scottsdale didn’t bring up its rights under the exclusion until too late in the game, which constitutes an unfair attempt by Scottsdale to “mend its hold.” The mend-the-hold doctrine prevents a defense in contract litigation from changing defenses midstream without any reason for doing so.

Indiana has only applied this doctrine once – back in 1928 – and the judges declined to use it in this case. In addition, the parties had ample notice of Scottsdale’s intent to assert all defenses to coverage available to it under the policy, Judge Diane Wood wrote.

A typo in some of Scottsdale’s filings regarding how much it seeks to recover does not prevent it from recovering more than $450,000, the judges ruled.

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT