Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance adjuster’s motion for judgment on pleadings in action by plaintiff (individual who obtained rights of insured) alleging that defendant was negligent in handling underlying state-court complaint filed against insured by employee of insured who sought damages for personal injuries that were sustained in insured’s workplace where: (1) according to insured, said negligence allowed employee to obtain $3.8 million default judgment against insured; and (2) insured’s insurance company, which had hired defendant to handle said complaint, ultimately denied coverage for employee’s injuries under terms of insurance policy. Defendant, as insurance adjuster, had no relationship to insured, and thus, under Indiana law, although defendant owed duty to insurance company, it owed no legal duty to insured. Moreover, record showed that defendant had not specifically and deliberately undertaken task that, according to insured, defendant had performed negligently.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendants (entity that leased footwear space within plaintiff’s store and entity’s insurance company) had duty to defend plaintiff in underlying lawsuit by plaintiff’s customer, who suffered injuries in store while being assisted by entity’s employee and plaintiff’s employee, even though agreement between plaintiff and defendant-entity provided that entity’s employees could only work in footwear department controlled by entity. Customer’s injuries (which occurred outside footwear department) were potentially covered under said agreement and relevant insurance policy. Moreover, fact that plaintiff waited 18 months to alert defendant-insurance company about underlying lawsuit did not constitute breach of notice provisions, although defendants were responsible for only those defense costs incurred after insurance company received notice of lawsuit. Also, Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant-entity was responsible for 15% of customer’s injuries where said injuries did not actually occur “pursuant to” or “under” agreement between plaintiff and entity.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-insured’s breach of contract action against defendant-insurance company, arising out of defendant’s failure to indemnify or defend lawsuits filed against plaintiff that toxic solvent used by plaintiff at its Indiana plant leaked into soil and groundwater. Instant policy contained exclusion for liability resulting from pollution caused by plaintiff, and although Indiana law would not enforce instant standard pollution-exclusion clause, Michigan law would enforce said clause. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in applying Michigan law, where policy covered all of plaintiff’s plants, and where vast majority of plaintiff's plants were located in Michigan.