ILNews

Justices disagree on pollution exclusion coverage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Supreme Court has held that the pollution exclusion contained in a general commercial liability policy is ambiguous and should be construed to provide coverage rather than in favor of the insurance company trying to deny coverage.

In a 3-2 decision in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc. and RTS Realty, Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson affirmed a ruling by Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele in favor of Flexdar. Justice Steven David concurred in result. But Justice Frank Sullivan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard disagreed, writing that they think the majority’s ruling will result in higher insurance premiums.

The case involves an Indianapolis rubber stamp and printing plate facility that operated from the mid-1990s to 2003, and how the manufacturing process used a chemical solvent that later appeared in the soil and groundwater on and near the site. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management informed the company it would be liable for cleanup costs, and Flexdar turned to its commercial general liability and umbrella insurance policies with State Automobile Mutual Insurance for defense and indemnification. State Auto agreed to defend Flexdar against the claims under a reservation of its right to deny coverage, but it later argued that the contamination wasn’t covered because of a pollution exclusion in the policy.

The trial court agreed with Flexdar that the policy’s exclusion language was ambiguous and should be construed against State Auto, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

Rucker wrote that Indiana applies basic contract principles to these issues and precedent has consistently held that an insurer can and should specify what falls within its pollution exclusion. In cases where the court’s found the language ambiguous, it has ruled in favor of coverage. In this case, the question is whether the policy language is sufficiently unambiguous to identify the chemical solvent as a pollutant, and this time they’ve determined it is not. Precedent dictates affirming the trial court’s decision, he wrote.

Sullivan and Shepard dissented in a two-page opinion, finding in favor of the insurer and noting they would have reversed the trial judge’s decision. Pointing to a 1996 decision from the state’s justices, Sullivan wrote that Indiana caselaw has never before stood for the proposition that all pollution exclusions are unenforceable but that is what this ruling now does.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT