ILNews

Mining company an insured under contractor’s policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The mining company that hired a truck company as a contractor is considered an insured under the truck company’s insurance policy with regards to an injured trucking employee, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Peabody Energy Corp., Peabody Coal Company, LLC, and Black Beauty Coal Company v. Richard F. Roark, Beelman Truck Co., and North American Capacity Insurance Co., 14A01-1112-CT-555, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for North American Capacity Insurance Co. on its motion that it does not have to defend Peabody in a negligence lawsuit filed against the company by Richard Roark. Roark worked for Beelman Truck Co., which entered into a master performance agreement with Peabody Energy Corp. In June 2005, Roark delivered a load of ash from a power plant to Peabody’s mine. When he got out of the truck and walked toward the middle of the trailer, the ground gave way and his left foot was injured.

Peabody demanded coverage from NAC, which was Beelman’s insurer. The insurance company claimed it had no duty to defend because Roark’s claims did not arise from Beelman’s work. Peabody also alleged that Beelman breached the master performance agreement. Both sides filed for summary judgment, which Daviess Circuit Judge Gregory Smith granted in favor of NAC.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Roark’s injuries arose out of Beelman’s operations, so Peabody is an additional insured under the insurance policy and is therefore entitled to summary judgment.

“Regardless of whether Roark was injured because of Peabody’s sole negligence, the designated evidence shows that Roark’s injuries — the basis of Peabody’s potential liability — arose out of Beelman’s operations. Thus, Peabody is an additional insured under the Policy,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

Since Peabody is an additional insured under the policy, Beelman did not breach the MPA, the court affirmed.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT