X hits on this document





13 / 21

the known loss doctrine is not so much an exception, limitation, or exclusion as it is a principle intrinsic to the very concept of insurance.  See Russ and Segalla, supra, §102:9 at 25.  Therefore, despite the fact that the policies at issue failed to mention the known loss doctrine, we hold that it is applicable to these policies.

Next, Housewares contends that recent decisions by courts in Indiana have favored the rights of the insured to recover costs in responding to environmental cleanups required by law.  In support of this contention, Housewares cites American States Ins. Co. v. Kiger (1996) Ind., 662 N.E.2d 945; Seymour Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. (1996) Ind., 665 N.E.2d 891; Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v. Dana Corp. (1997) Ind.App., 690 N.E.2d 285, trans. denied; Travelers Indem. Co. v. Summit Corp. (1999) Ind.App., 715 N.E.2d 926; and Governmental Interinsurance Exch. v. City of Angola (1998) N.D.Ind., 8 F.Supp.2d 1120.  However, in none of these cases was there any claim that the insured knew of the loss before coverage incepted.  It is true that Indiana courts favor coverage when interpreting ambiguities in insurance policies, particularly where a policy excludes coverage.  See Kiger, supra at 947.  Nevertheless, as noted above, the known loss doctrine embodies the fundamental requirement of fortuity in insurance and is therefore applicable to all insurance contracts, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Housewares also contends that the known loss doctrine should not apply to its policies with National because these policies cover third-party liability.  We do not find this argument persuasive.  Courts have rejected claims that the known loss doctrine

Document info
Document views67
Page views67
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 18:08:04 UTC 2017