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.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.