Indiana

Subscribe to Indiana

The Indiana Court of Appeals, applying Indiana law, has held that a ransomware attack did not necessarily constitute a “fraudulent” act, and the corresponding loss did not fall within the scope of the computer fraud coverage part of a multi-peril commercial insurance policy.  G&G Oil Co. of Ind. v. Cont’l Western Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1528095 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2020).  The court rejected the argument that the ransomware attack was a fraud because it was an “unconscionable dealing” and instead found that the hacker did not “pervert the truth” or engage in deception in order to induce ransom payment.
…
Continue Reading No Computer Fraud Coverage for Ransomware Attack

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Indiana law, has revived a coverage dispute over whether a medical malpractice insurer’s professional liability insurer must cover the malpractice insurer’s post-verdict excess settlement of an underlying wrongful death claim, finding that factual questions remain as to whether the malpractice insurer’s refusal to settle the wrongful death claim on behalf of its insured physician was an actual “Wrongful Act” triggering a prior knowledge exclusion.  Med. Protective Co. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6613336 (7th Cir. Dec. 18, 2018).
…
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds that Actual Wrongful Act Must be Established to Trigger Prior Knowledge Exclusion

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has held that a prior litigation and event exclusion in a directors and officers liability policy did not bar coverage for a shareholder suit against the insured.  Emmis Commc’n Corp. v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1410191 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 2018).  The court held that the exclusion applied only to events reported prior to the policy’s inception, and further that the exclusion did not apply because the action against the insured was not caused by or related to two previous lawsuits.
…
Continue Reading Court Holds Prior Litigation and Event Exclusion Does Not Apply

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, applying Indiana law, denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on rescission, holding that there was a question of material fact where the insurer did not provide evidence of the amount of claims paid or premiums received for the policies to be rescinded.  Proassurance Indemn. Co., Inc. v. Wagoner, 2017 WL 3421983 (S.D. Ind. August 9, 2017).  The court also held that there was an issue of material fact regarding when the insurer knew about the insured’s alleged breach of the policy that may entitle the insurer to rescind the policies.
…
Continue Reading Disputes Over Amounts of Premiums and Claims Paid Prevent Summary Judgment in Rescission Case

Applying Indiana law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that neither a company’s crime policy nor its commercial property policy provided coverage for theft of company property by a consultant who worked for the company.  Telamon Corp. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2017 WL 942656 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2017).
…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Consultant’s Theft Under Company’s Crime or Property Policies

The Court of Appeals of Indiana, applying Indiana law, has held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insured against a complaint alleging only intentional misconduct where the policy covered only negligent acts, errors and omissions.  Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Louis Jancetic, 2016 WL 6584268 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2016).  The court further held that the insurer had not engaged in any conduct that would estop it from denying coverage.
…
Continue Reading Under Errors and Omissions Policy, No Duty to Defend Suit Alleging Only Intentional Misconduct

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has held that coverage under a claims-made-and-reported policy is not illusory where coverage is unavailable for claims that do not satisfy the policy’s claims-made, reporting, and retroactive date requirements.  Sunshine v. Gen. Star Nat’l Ins. Co., 2016 WL 5371848 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2016).
…
Continue Reading Coverage Not Illusory Where Coverage is Unavailable for Claims Failing to Satisfy a Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy’s Requirements

Applying Indiana law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has held that a policy which insures the same pool of risk and offers professional liability coverage for the insured law firm for professional acts provides “similar coverage” as that term is used in the firm’s previous professional liability policy despite the fact that the later policy contained an additional exclusion. Levy & Dubovich, v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am., 2016 WL 1244018 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2016). In light of that conclusion, the court further held that the Automatic Extended Reporting Period (AERP) under the previous policy terminated when the law firm purchased the subsequent policy.…
Continue Reading Replacement Professional Liability Policy Sufficiently “Similar” to Original Policy to Prevent Application of Extended Reporting Period