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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT