ILNews

Settlement without insurer’s consent is at builder’s expense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals praised a homebuilder for its quick response and remedy to a couple’s discovery that their brand new home was full of backed-up sewage. But because Arbor Homes didn’t get the consent of the insurer regarding a settlement, the insurer has no obligation to pay for the cleanup.

Kurt and Joy Lorch purchased a home from Arbor in 2007, but shortly after moving in, they became ill. A smell in the home was caused by raw sewage being discharged into the home’s crawl space. A&M Plumbing, hired by Willmez Plumbing to perform work on the Arbor homes, failed to connect the home’s plumbing to the main sewer line.

As part of Willmez’s contract with Arbor, it agreed to take out insurance and Arbor was named as an additional insured. Subcontractors hired by Willmez were bound to the same terms as Willmez.

Arbor acted quickly and cleaned up the home, but it eventually acquiesced to the Lorches’ request that the company purchase their home and build the couple a new one. Arbor told Willmez to place its insurer West Bend Insurance Co. on notice of the Lorches’ claims, but West Bend was not informed of the proposed settlement or eventual execution until it was completed. Arbor completed the settlement on the belief that the insurer’s silence meant it had no objections.

Arbor sued Willmez, and insurer West Bend sought a declaration it had no duty to defend or indemnify Arbor, denying coverage under various theories, including that Arbor wasn’t an additional insured. It later conceded that Arbor should have been treated as such.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of West Bend, finding the insurer was relieved of any duty under the fungi and bacteria exclusion as well as the voluntary payments provision. In West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arbor Homes LLC, 12-2274, the 7th Circuit focused on the voluntary payments provision of the contract, which says that the insured must tell West Bend as soon as practicable of any occurrence and of any claims or lawsuits and that an insured cannot voluntarily make a payment without West Bend’s consent.

“There is no evidence that West Bend ‘consented’ to any settlement as required by the voluntary payments provision,” Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote. “Although Arbor behaved admirably in expeditiously resolving the matter for the homeowners, it failed to protect its own interests when it relied on Willmez to notify West Bend about the incident, and failed to obtain West Bend’s consent for any settlement. Having no opportunity to participate in the investigation or settlement, West Bend is entitled to enforcement of the plain language of the contract: Arbor’s settlements with Willmez and with the Lorches without the consent of West Bend is at Arbor’s own expense.”

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT