Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 December 2001
• Docket Number: No. 49S02-0105-CV-231.,49S02-0105-CV-231.
• Citation: 759 N.E.2d 1049
• Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, solely as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company, f/k/a Northbrook Insurance Company, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. DANA CORPORATION, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

759 N.E.2d 1049

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, solely as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company, f/k/a Northbrook Insurance Company, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. DANA CORPORATION, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 49S02-0105-CV-231.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

December 20, 2001.

Max Gray, Indianapolis, Stephen D. Cuyler, Thomas J. Castano, Parsippany, NJ, Robert F. Walsh, Susan M. Chesler, New York, NY, Steven Lovern, Indianapolis, for Appellant.

Steven M. Badger, Insurance Environmental Litigation Association, Indianapolis, Laura A. Foggan, Karalee C. Morell, Insurance Environmental Litigation Association, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

George M. Plews, Frederick D. Emhardt, Indianapolis, for Appellee.

Frank J. Deveau, Donald C. Biggs, Julia E. Dimick, Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association, Inc., Indiana Manufacturers Association, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Indianapolis, for Amici Curiae.

ON PETITION FOR TRANSFER

BOEHM, Justice.

This consolidated appeal addresses a number of issues of insurance coverage for environmental cleanup liabilities.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dana Corporation is a manufacturer of automotive components. Sixty-three of its facilities, located in nineteen states, have become the subject of governmental or third-party actions resulting in substantial environmental cleanup costs. Allstate Insurance Company is the successor in interest to Dana's excess liability insurer in the relevant years. When Dana's liability insurers denied coverage for the cleanup, Dana sued. Several trial court rulings produced an interlocutory appeal in 1997. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Dana Corp., 690 N.E.2d 285, 288 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), trans. denied. In that appeal, the Court of Appeals held: (1) Indiana law governed construction of the policies; (2) the term "suits," as used in the policies, included "coercive and adversarial administrative proceedings"; and (3) the term "damages," as used in the policies, included "EPA or state-mandated cleanup and response costs." Id. at 294, 296, 298. In general, these holdings meant Dana was entitled to indemnity for cleanup costs, subject to policy limits and exclusions.

After the first appeal, Dana settled with all of its insurers except Allstate. Although Dana's coverage of at least some cleanup costs was established, a number of issues remained unresolved. These were the subject of a second round of motions resulting in the trial court's entry of judgment for Dana in the amount of $4,599,314.30 as to Dana's facility in Old Forge, Pennsylvania, one of the several sites. Although liability as to the other sites remained unadjudicated, the trial court certified the Old Forge judgment and a number of earlier rulings on partial summary judgments for appeal pursuant to Trial Rule 54(B). Both Allstate and Dana appealed. Each challenged three of the trial court's rulings and defended three others. The Court of Appeals addressed all six in detail, affirming two and reversing four. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp., 737 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). This Court granted transfer.

Standard of Review

All of the issues in this appeal address Allstate's liability to Dana under excess liability policies issued by Allstate's predecessor, Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, for five policy years from 1977 through 1982.¹ The trial court's rulings and judgments were on motions for partial summary judgment by Dana and Allstate.² Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Shell Oil Co. v. Lovold Co., 705 N.E.2d 981, 983-84 (Ind.1998).

I. Liability for Property Damage to Ground Water on Dana-Owned Property

Each of the policies provides that Allstate will pay all sums Dana becomes obligated to pay because of liability for damages resulting from "property damage." Much of the disputed cost is for remediation of contaminated ground water. A primary issue in the trial court and Court of Appeals was whether ground water constitutes property of the landowner, and if it does, whether the policies cover cleanup related to ground water in Dana's own property. Whether Allstate must pay for the costs incurred by Dana in complying with orders to clean up its own property depends on (1) the scope of the policies' coverage grants,³ and (2) the effect of the policies' exclusions for "property damage" to property owned by Dana. Essentially, the determination of both issues comes down to how "property damage" is defined in each policy.

Other courts have arrived at varying interpretations of similar "owned property" exclusions in the context of claims for costs associated with environmental cleanup orders.⁴ We start from the proposition that "contracts for insurance are subject to the same rules of interpretation as are other contracts. If the policy language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 482 N.E.2d 467, 470 (Ind.1985) (citations omitted). Here, each policy's language does provide an answer, albeit different answers for different policies.

The 1977, 1978 and 1979 policies contain identical language in both their coverage grants and "owned property" exclusions. The 1980 and 1981 policies are identical to each other in this respect, but differ from the first three.

A. 1977-79 Policies

The 1977-79 policies define "property damage" as "loss of or direct damage to or destruction of tangible property (other than property owned by an Insured) which results in an Occurrence during the policy period." Given this definition of "property damage," these policies provide coverage for:

all sums which the insured shall be obligated to pay by reason of the liability... imposed upon the Insured by law... for damages on account of ... [loss of or direct damage to or destruction of tangible property (other than property owned by an Insured)] ... caused by or arising out of each Occurrence happening anywhere in the world.

(emphasis added). Thus, these policies provide coverage for liability resulting from damage to property owned by others, but deny coverage for liability resulting from damage to Dana's own property. Because there is no liability coverage for damage to Dana's own property, reference to the "owned property" exclusion in these policies is unnecessary.

We are uncertain to what extent Dana's claims are based on cleanup of ground water that remained solely within the confines of Dana's property. Under this coverage grant, if ground water in Dana's land is Dana's property, then the 1977-79 policies provide no coverage for cleanup in that category. The Court of Appeals concluded that "[u]nless and until a landowner takes the ground water into actual possession, it remains the property of the State," 737 N.E.2d at 1187, and that because Dana had not taken the ground water into possession, the policies afforded coverage. We disagree with the Court of Appeals' analysis of this issue.

In Wiggins v. Brazil Coal & Clay Corp., 452 N.E.2d 958, 964 (Ind.1983), this Court held that plaintiffs who owned a lake formed from ground water had no cause of action against a strip mining company, where the company's removal of ground water on its property resulted in a lower water level for the plaintiffs' lake. This Court stated, "Ground water is part of the land in which it is present and belongs to the owner of that land." Id. This holding derives from the English Rule, or absolute dominion rule, that "ground water is part of the land and the landowner has the absolute right to use the water as he wishes." City of Valparaiso v. Defler, 694 N.E.2d 1177, 1179 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). In Defler, the Court of Appeals took Wiggins to mean that the plaintiffs had no cause of action because, not having taken it into possession, they had no ownership interest in the ground water on their land. Id. at 1181. The Court of Appeals in the present case applied this doctrine, citing Defler, to conclude that the "owned property" exclusion did not apply.

We believe the Court of Appeals, here and in Defler, misconstrued the holding in Wiggins by equating restrictions on ground water use with lack of ground water ownership. Wiggins observed that Indiana follows a modified version of the English Rule, in that water "may be put to use to the fullest extent to further enjoyment of the land, however this right does not extend to causing injury gratuitously or maliciously to nearby lands and their owners." Wiggins, 452 N.E.2d at 964 (emphasis added). This is not a holding with respect to ownership of the water. Rather, it is a holding that although ground water is the landowner's property, the landowner does not enjoy the absolute immunity for its harmful use that the English Rule would have granted. Otherwise stated, the plaintiffs in Wiggins had no cause of action, not because they had no ownership interest in the water in their land, but because the strip mining company was free to do with the water in its land as it saw fit, so long as the resulting injury was not gratuitous or malicious. Wiggins, 452 N.E.2d at 964. So viewed, the Indiana modification to the English Rule limited the permissible use of ground water, but did not abandon the common law status of ground water as property of the landowner.⁵

Because any contamination of ground water in Dana-owned land is contamination of Dana-owned property, the 1977-79 policies do not provide indemnification under "property damage" for the cost of treating contamination on Dana's property. The necessary corollary to this principle is that if the ground water has percolated beyond the confines of the landowner's property, it no longer belongs to that landowner. As a result, there is property damage coverage to the extent liability is based on...