5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC v. Netherlands Insurance Comp., Consolidated Insurance Comp., and Indiana Insurance Comp, 29 N.E.3d 156

KLR purchased contaminated Indianapolis property from Apex in 2004 after receiving a Keramida Phase II report showing soil and groundwater contamination above IDEM action levels and noting that corrective action was necessary.
Apex had previously sued Filmcraft (a prior operator) to recover testing and remediation costs; KLR accepted assignment of that lawsuit and indemnified Apex in the purchase agreement.
KLR obtained successive CGL policies from Netherlands (2004–05), Consolidated (2005–08), and Indiana Insurance (2008–2010).
IDEM learned of the contamination in 2012, issued a letter in 2013 naming KLR a potentially responsible party and requiring investigation/remediation.
KLR notified the insurers in 2012–2013 requesting defense and indemnity; insurers denied coverage, asserting KLR knew of the contamination before buying the property and before the policies’ effective dates.
KLR sued to compel defense/indemnity; the trial court granted insurers’ summary judgment. KLR appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the known-loss doctrine bars coverage for IDEM remediation costs	KLR: It lacked knowledge it would be held responsible; duty to defend is broad and insurers must defend unless pleadings show clear exclusion	Insurers: KLR knew of contamination that made remediation inevitable before buying and before policies, so loss was not fortuitous; known-loss doctrine bars coverage	Court: Affirmed — known-loss doctrine applies; no duty to defend or indemnify

General Housewares Corp. v. National Sur. Corp., 741 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (articulates and applies the known-loss doctrine in third-party liability insurance)
Crawfordsville Square, LLC v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., 906 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (applies known-loss doctrine to purchaser who knew contamination exceeded regulatory/action levels)
Gaboury v. Ireland Rd. Grace Brethren, Inc., 446 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind. 1983) (an affidavit that contradicts earlier statements cannot create a genuine issue to defeat summary judgment)
Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (discusses when self-serving affidavits can defeat summary judgment)
Jim Barna Log Sys. Midwest, Inc. v. Gen. Cas. Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 791 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (insurer may rely on facts outside the complaint to deny a defense when those facts clearly show no coverage)