National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Standard Fusee Corp.
940 N.E.2d 810
| Ind. | 2010Background
- SFC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland; it owned facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, and California over time and leased Indiana and California facilities from Olin; it purchased CGL policies with respect to multiple sites; claims involve environmental liabilities at Indiana and California sites; disputes concern whether policy interpretation should be uniform or site-specific and which state’s law governs; Maryland has the most intimate contacts to the insured risk and the dispute, per Indiana Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs contract interpretation for multisite policies? | SFC seeks uniform-interpretation across all sites. | Insurers advocate site-specific interpretation. | Uniform interpretation governs. |
| Which state has the most intimate contacts to apply for the entire dispute? | Indiana or Maryland could govern; Maryland has closer ties. | Indiana should govern due to location of site-specific facts. | Maryland law applies to the entire dispute. |
| What is the principal location of the insured risk for insurance contracts here? | Maryland site and headquarters suggest Maryland is principal. | Facts are relatively balanced; no single dominant site. | Maryland is the principal location of the insured risk. |
| How do Restatement factors weigh in site selection (place of performance, etc.)? | Various factors are balanced; no decisive Indiana factor. | Place of performance supported Indiana for some reasoning. | Overall contacts favor Maryland; apply Maryland law. |
| What is the result and governing law for the dispute? | Maryland law should govern the entire matter. | Indiana law should govern or a mix; uniform approach preferred but not adopted. | Maryland law applies to the entire dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coachmen Indus., Inc. v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 838 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (center-of-gravity approach; most intimate contacts governs insurance contracts)
- Recticel Foam Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 716 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (multisite choice-of-law factors in contracts)
- Summit Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 715 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (uniform-contact interpretation favored by Indiana Court of Appeals)
- Dana Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 690 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (insurer liability across multiple sites; factors for choice of law)
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Reuter, 537 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2008) (contacts focus on insureds’ principal places of business)
- W.H. Barber Co. v. Richman, 63 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. 1945) (birth of most intimate contact/center-of-gravity approach to contracts)
- Kentucky Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 919 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (applies Kentucky law to insurance coverage claims in some contexts)
- Allen v. Great American Reserve Ins. Co., 766 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002) (choice-of-law in insurance contract interpretation)