liability is substantially certain. However, it may be months before the dollar amount of liability is certain, and the known loss doctrine bars purchasing insurance after the accident. An insured’s liability need not be fixed to a monetary certainty; if the known liability has occurred or is substantially certain to occur, the known loss doctrine bars coverage.
Having identified the legal issues involved, we must now determine whether any material facts relevant to these issues are in dispute. , , 557 N.E.2d at 1085. Summary judgment is inappropriate even if the trial court believes that the non-moving party will be unsuccessful at trial. , , 699 N.E.2d at 713-714. Summary judgment may not be entered if conflicting inferences arise from the undisputed facts. . at 714. To prevail, the appealing party must establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact from those materials designated to the trial court. . at 713. The application of the known loss doctrine in this case depends upon whether Housewares, through its agents, had actual knowledge that liability was substantially certain prior to the inception of the National insurance policies. (1986) Ind.App., 494 N.E.2d 361, 366 (noting that a corporation works exclusively through the acts of its agents) .
The designated materials demonstrate that, on September 5, 1989, Housewares entered into a final order with IDEM relating to the cleanup of the Terre Haute site. In this order, Housewares, acting through its President, agreed to an extensive cleanup of the