American Employers Ins. v. Coachmen Indus., 20A03-0412-CV-567.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 20A03-0412-CV-567.,20A03-0412-CV-567. |
| Citation | 838 N.E.2d 1172 |
| Parties | AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Granite State Insurance Company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, International Insurance Company, Transcontinental Insurance Company, and Continental Insurance Company, Appellants-Defendants, v. COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC., and Coachmen Industries of Texas, Inc., Appellees-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Martha S. Hollngsworth, Candace L. Sage, Bingham McHale LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellants Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Transcontinental Ins. Co. and Continental Ins. Co.
Robert T. Sanders, III, Sanders Pianowski, LLP, Elkhart, IN, Attorney for Appellants Pacific Employers Ins. Co. and International Ins. Co.
Don G. Blackmond, Doran Blackmond LLP, South Bend, IN, Attorney for Appellants National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA and Granite State Ins. Co.
William G. Stone, Stone & Moore, Chtd., Chicago, IL, Attorney for Appellant American Employers Ins. Co.
Thomas A. Barnard, Thomas F. O'Gara, Sommer Barnard Attorneys, PC, Indianapolis, IN, John D. Ulmer, Craig M. Buche, Yoder, Ainlay, Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP, Goshen, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
Defendants — numerous insurance companies — appeal the trial court's granting of Coachmen Industries, Inc. ("Coachmen") and Coachmen Industries of Texas, Inc.'s ("CIT") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Choice of Law.1 The dispute at the center of this interlocutory appeal centers upon whether, as advocated by Coachmen, the substantive law of Indiana or whether, as advocated by the defendant insurance companies, the substantive law of Texas should apply. The trial court determined that the substantive law of Indiana should apply. Because Indiana is the state with the most intimate contacts — as set forth by Indiana case law and the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 188 and § 193 — we affirm the trial court.
Coachmen is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Elkhart, Indiana. Coachmen is a manufacturer of recreational vehicles, modular buildings, and other products under various brand names through subsidiaries, and Coachmen conducts such manufacturing at facilities throughout the United States. Nonetheless, the bulk of Coachmen's products are manufactured in Elkhart County, Indiana ("Elkhart County").2 In addition, Coachmen has consistently maintained its headquarters there. CIT is a Texas corporation incorporated in 1970, Appellants' App. p. 397-400, with its principal office during the relevant time period in Elkhart, Indiana, id. at 281, and its principal place of business in Grapevine, Texas. Id. at 430. CIT is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coachmen, id. at 281, and Coachmen "was always the parent and sole shareholder of [CIT]." Id. at 379, 748. CIT is currently an inactive subsidiary of Coachmen, Appellees' App. p. 807, and has been since at least 1990. See Appellants' App. p. 540.3 In fact, CIT has had no employees since 1991. Id. at 303.
The defendants, American Employers Insurance Company ("American"), Granite State Insurance Company ("Granite"), Pacific Employers Insurance Company ("Pacific"), National Union Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA ("National"), International Insurance Company ("International"), Transcontinental Insurance Company ("Transcontinental"), and Continental Insurance Company ("Continental") (collectively "the insurance companies"), wrote and sold comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance policies to Coachmen for risks incurred by Coachmen and its subsidiaries. Id. at 570. Neither CIT nor any other Coachmen subsidiary purchased CGL insurance separate from the policies purchased by Coachmen; in addition, Coachmen's subsidiaries did not decide which CGL policies to purchase. Id. Coachmen "included CIT within the definition of `named insured' or identified it as an `additional named insured' in each of the policies at issue in this case either by specifically naming CIT or by referring to all of Coachmen's subsidiaries on the `named insured' endorsement." Id. Coachmen communicated about its insurance contracts either in person at its Elkhart County headquarters or over the telephone or fax machine from its Indiana headquarters. Id. at 309-10. Coachmen executed its insurance contracts at its headquarters. Id. at 310. Importantly for the resolution of the instant case, however, the policies did not include a choice of law clause to use in construing its terms.
In 1975, Coachmen leased a manufacturing facility located in Grapevine, Texas ("Grapevine Site") with an option to purchase. Id. at 610, 623. Coachmen decided to exercise this option in 1976. Id. at 629. The title of the Grapevine Site was conveyed from the seller to CIT. Id. at 631. The Grapevine Site was closed by Coachmen in 1985. Id. at 70. In 1997, Coachmen first received notice that the owners of land adjacent to the Grapevine Site were alleging that environmental contamination from the Grapevine Site had migrated to their land. CIT subsequently entered into a "Voluntary Cleanup Agreement" ("VCA") with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. See id. at 406-413. In the text of the VCA, CIT indicated that all correspondence to be submitted to CIT should be mailed or faxed to an Elkhart address or phone number. Id. at 407. Moreover, one of Coachmen's Executive Vice Presidents was the contact person for the VCA. Id. at 606. To date, Coachmen has spent over $1,000,000 to remedy the contamination.
On July 26, 2000, Coachmen and CIT filed a joint complaint against the insurance companies in two counts: (1) breach of contract and (2) tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the complaint was amended on July 29, 2003.4 On April 12, 2004, Coachmen and CIT filed a joint motion for partial summary judgment on choice of law and in so doing argued that Indiana law governs the interpretation of the insurance contracts at issue in this case. On June 21, 2004, the insurance companies filed a motion in opposition to Coachmen and CIT's motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The insurance companies, in arguing that they are entitled to summary judgment, asserted that the law of Texas should govern the case. Each side asserted that the law of different states applies because the decision of what state's law to apply — either Indiana or Texas — will most likely determine who prevails on the merits of the complaint. The trial court, following a hearing, issued an order granting Coachmen and CIT's motion for partial summary judgment on the choice of law issue — ruling that Indiana law applies — and denying the insurance companies' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The insurance companies now appeal.
Our standard of review when considering a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is well settled, and it is the same standard used by the trial court. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Acton, 703 N.E.2d 662, 664 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. We construe the designated evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the record reveals a genuine issue of material fact and whether the trial court correctly applied the law. Id. As is true with other contracts, the interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law. Vann v. United Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co., 790 N.E.2d 497, 502 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied, 804 N.E.2d 751 (Ind.2003). Thus, cases involving interpretation of insurance policies are particularly appropriate for summary judgment. Id. Before engaging in a choice of law analysis, there must be a conflict between the states' laws. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Summit Corp. of Am., 715 N.E.2d 926, 930-31 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). The parties allege that there is a conflict between the pertinent insurance law of Indiana and of Texas, see Appellants' Br. p. 10 n. 3, Appellees' Br. p. 1 (), and for the purposes of our analysis, we will assume that a conflict exists. When faced with a choice of law question, the decision is made by the courts of the state in which the suit is pending. Schaffert v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 687 N.E.2d 230, 232 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. Consequently, choice of law questions are particularly appropriate for summary judgment.
The parties are substantially in agreement as to the current state of Indiana law on choice of law that governs this case, although each side argues that the law favors its position. The parties assert that three principal cases from Indiana govern the resolution of this matter. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Recticel Foam Corp., 716 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Summit, 715 N.E.2d 926; Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Dana Corp., 690 N.E.2d 285 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. Indiana follows the approach formulated by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws when deciding which law to apply when there is a conflict.5 Summit, 715 N.E.2d at 931; Dana, 690 N.E.2d at 291. To that end, the parties also contend that two sections of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws — § 188 and § 193, but particularly the factors delineated in § 188(2) — are helpful to the resolution of this case, and the aforementioned Indiana cases upon which the parties rely interpret these Restatement sections as well. Those sections provide:
(1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.6
(2) In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G&s Holdings LLC v. Cont'l Cas. Co
...resolution, the Court will assume that a conflict between Indiana and Georgia state law exists. See Am. Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 838 N.E.2d 1172, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (assuming a conflict because the parties briefed the issue). In resolving a choice-of-law issue in a c......
-
Dixon v. Nat'l Hot Rod Ass'n
...Before engaging in a choice of law analysis, there must be a conflict between the states' laws. Am. Employers Ins. Co. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc. , 838 N.E.2d 1172, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. Summit Corp. of Am. , 715 N.E.2d 926, 930–31 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) ). N......
-
Destefano v. Cochran, Jr.
...of law, calls for applying the law of the forum with the most intimate contacts to the facts." American Employers Ins. Co. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 838 N.E.2d 1172, 1178 (Ind.App.2005). The factors to be considered include: (1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiation; (3) th......
-
Taylor v. Lifetouch Nat. School Studios, Inc., 4:05-cv-0017 AS.
...of law rule calls for applying the law of the forum with the most intimate contacts to the facts. American Employers Ins. Co. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 838 N.E.2d 1172, 1178 (Ind.App.2005). Here, however, the parties have made an effective choice of law. See General Motors Corp. v. Northrop......
-
Chapter 3
...Inc., 526 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2008) (same). State Courts: Indiana: American Employers Insurance Co. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 838 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. App. 2005) (same). New York: Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 67 A.D.3d 420, 888......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...Inc., 526 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2008) (same). State Courts: Indiana: American Employers Insurance Co. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 838 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. App. 2005) (same). New York: Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 67 A.D.3d 420, 888......