24 N.E.3d 444
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- FLM leased Indianapolis land to IRI which collected foundry sand on the property; Chrysler halted payments and IRI went bankrupt, leaving 100,000+ tons of sand; IDEM and the City issued notices for removal; FLM sought indemnity from Cincinnati (IRI’s insurer) and Cincinnati moved for partial summary judgment; trial court granted Cincinnati, denying FLM’s cross-motion; First appellate panel reversed on personal injury coverage but did not decide property damage; on remand, FLM proposed an order granting both coverages and Cincinnati interpleaded $1.7M; subsequent proceedings led to conflicts over property damage coverage and separate policy limits; Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately held property damage coverage exists and there are separate $1,000,000 limits for each coverage under the CGL policy; case remanded for appropriate summary judgment relief on property damage and limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property damage coverage exists under the CGL policy | FLM asserts property damage coverage exists | Cincinnati argued no property damage coverage | Property damage coverage exists (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether the CGL policy allows separate $1 million limits for each coverage | FLM argues separate limits apply to property damage and personal injury | Cincinnati argues only one limit applies | Yes, separate $1,000,000 limits exist for the two coverages (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revising the July 10 order | WAIVER theory; FLM contends court correctly revised | Cincinnati asserts waiver and scope limits | Trial court abused discretion by striking property damage findings; remand to enterproperty-damage judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 842 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. 2006) (ambiguous ‘occurrence’ meaning governs accidental coverage for property damage)
- Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 964 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1998) (overlapping coverages may be provided; insured not required to elect; no anti-stacking bar on same policy unless expressly stated)
- State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flexdar, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. 2012) (anti-stacking provisions require clear language; absence favors coverage)
- Haskell v. Peterson Pontiac GMC Trucks, 609 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (trial courts may reconsider nonfinal orders; inherent power to revise)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 726 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (mandate compliance; lower court must adhere to appellate directions)