151 N.E.3d 754
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- NCAA promulgated rules (notably Bylaw 15) capping athletic scholarships below full cost of attendance; White (filed 2006, settled 2008) challenged those caps as an antitrust violation.
- Jenkins (filed 2014) later sued the NCAA seeking to enjoin a broader set of NCAA rules (Bylaws 12, 13, 15, 16) that limit player compensation; Jenkins’ class and timeframe differed from White.
- NCAA had claims-made coverage for 2005–06 (the White period) and new primary/excess claims-made policies for 2012–14 (the Jenkins period); the 2012–14 primary policy contained a "Related Wrongful Acts" exclusion and a notice/related-claims provision.
- Insurer XL concluded Jenkins alleged the same or related wrongful acts as White and denied coverage for Jenkins under the 2012–14 policy; excess insurers followed XL’s denial.
- NCAA sued for declaratory judgment; trial court granted summary judgment for insurers, holding Jenkins is a related claim first made during White and thus excluded/attributable to the earlier policy.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: Jenkins is a Related Wrongful Act to White, so Jenkins is treated as made during the 2005–06 policy and barred by the 2012–14 exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012–2014 Related Wrongful Acts Exclusion bars coverage for Jenkins | Exclusion is overbroad/ambiguous (would negate coverage broadly); Jenkins alleges different/unrelated wrongful acts than White so coverage applies | Exclusion unambiguous; Jenkins and White arise from the same/related wrongful acts (common nucleus of facts — Bylaw 15 and compensation scheme), so Jenkins is treated as made during White and excluded | The exclusion is not ambiguous; Jenkins and White allege the same/related wrongful acts (common nucleus of facts), so coverage is barred/allocated to the earlier policy and 2012–14 exclusion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flexdar, 964 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. 2012) (insurers must draft exclusions with specificity; court rejected both literal and ad hoc situational approaches to overbroad exclusions)
- American States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996) (where exclusion language is ambiguous, interpret against insurer; literal reading that eliminates virtually all coverage is unacceptable)
- Gregory v. Home Ins. Co., 876 F.2d 602 (7th Cir. 1989) (term "related" covers a broad range of connections; related claims may be treated as a single claim under policy language)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Allen, 814 N.E.2d 662 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (distinguishes "related" from "interrelated"; found "interrelated" ambiguous and construed narrowly against insurer)
- Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 698 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 1998) (ambiguous linking provisions construed in favor of insured; insurers must clearly express limitations)