ILNews

State Supreme Court rules in favor of power company insurers

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court said today that insurance carriers are not required to pay for power companies' costs incurred in a federal lawsuit, nor the installation of new equipment to reduce pollution as ordered in a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Cinergy Corp and Duke Energy v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, et al., 32S05-0604-CV-151, the state's highest court issued a 17-page unanimous opinion affirming a decision by Hendricks Superior Judge David H. Coleman. The trial judge had denied a motion by the power companies Cinergy and Duke for partial summary judgment.

Nineteen insurance companies had filed a complaint against Cinergy and Duke, wanting to determine the extent of the their insurance obligations with respect to a federal lawsuit relating to pollution reduction filed against the power companies by the United States, three states, and several environmental organizations. That case, U.S. v. Cinergy Corp. et al., No. 06-1224, was decided last year by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It upheld a decision by District Court Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana that an increase in actual emissions at industrial plants triggers new source review requirements for plants to install emissions controls.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in April, following a decision in a similar lawsuit that held the utility companies must install pollution control equipment on aging coal-fired power plants across the country.

According to this Indiana Supreme Court decision, the power companies filed a motion for plaintiff AEGIS to pay the more than $4 million the power companies have spent in defending itself in that Cinergy case - an amount exceeding the self-insured retention amount of up to $1 million. Costs include complying with the recent SCOTUS opinion that requires them to install equipment to reduce future emissions of pollutants, according to the state suit.

The insurance carriers - AEGIS - contended that the policies provide no coverage for claims made against the power companies in the federal suit, and therefore have no duty to pay defense costs.

The justices held that the phrase "ultimate net loss" as used in the insurance policies at issue, does not impose any responsibility on the carrier to pay for sums that the power companies might be legally obligated to pay as "ultimate net loss" for the costs of installing government-mandated equipment.

Justice Brent Dickson authored the opinion and wrote, "We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion because it seeks relief more extensive than that to which the power companies are entitled. ... Because the AEGIS insurance policies do not provide coverage for the costs of installing such equipment, the trial court did not err in denying partial summary judgment seeking to compel payment of all costs incurred by the power companies in defending all claims in the federal lawsuit."
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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT