ILNews

Policy provisions preclude coverage in settlement of class claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because the “voluntary payment” and “legally obligated to pay” provisions precluded coverage, a trial court properly entered partial judgment in favor of an insurer of a distillery involved in a settlement over damages caused to nearby buildings by the distillation process.

Pernod Ricard USA operated the Seagram Lawrenceburg Distillery, which became embroiled in a class-action lawsuit with neighboring property owners, including William Klepper, over damages caused by ethanol released in the air, which made mold grow on building exteriors. The property owners also alleged nuisance, negligence, trespass and illegal dumping.

Pernod was insured by XL Insurance America and by ACE American Insurance under a commercial general liability policy. ACE’s policy included a “legally obligated to pay” provision and a “voluntary payment” provision, which said no insured should voluntarily make a payment, assume obligation or incur any expense without ACE’s consent.

ACE initially did not contribute to Pernod’s defense, but later reimbursed XL for costs. The property owners, XL and ACE entered into settlement negotiations, but ACE declined to contribute $1 million toward a settlement, offering only $250.000. At a second mediation attempt, ACE left before it was over. XL and Pernod agreed a $5.2 million judgment would be entered against the distillery, with Pernod contributing $1.2 million, XL contributing $1 million and ACE contributing the remaining $3 million under the insurance policy.

Eventually the case made it to a special master, who concluded the “legally obligated to pay” and “voluntary payment” defenses were available to ACE because it provided a defense under a reservation of rights. The special master also found Pernod breached its obligation by entering the agreed judgment without the consent of ACE. The trial court declined to enter a final judgment on all issues, only the six ruled on by the special master.

The Court of Appeals unanimously held that ACE did not abandon Pernod or breach the policy.

“ACE may rely on the Policy’s ‘voluntary payment’ and ‘legally obligated to pay’ provisions, and those provisions preclude coverage under the Policy. To hold otherwise, would, effectively require us to write the ‘voluntary payment’ and ‘legally obligated to pay’ provisions out of the Policy, which we cannot do. We recognize and understand the dissent’s concerns. We simply believe that the rationale in (American Family Mutual Insurance co. v. C.M.A. Mortgage Inc.), the fact that ACE did not abandon Pernod or breach the Policy, and the extended analysis we have provided guide us to this result,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote in William Klepper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ace American Insurance Company, 15A05-1212-CC-645.

Judge Terry Crone disagreed with the majority that ACE may avoid the settlement agreement based on the “voluntary payment” and “legally obligated to pay” provisions.

“An insurer who defends an insured under a reservation of rights should not be able to use those policy provisions as both a shield and a sword,” he wrote. “Courts should not reward insurers for putting their insureds in a perilous position, nor should they penalize insureds for trying to protect themselves.”
 

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