{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e0b409", "proof": "sha256:7252ec0d06d96fc5a6ee08ab753551dd34ac166e320ca853528e3842367b130d", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 1 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "I N T H E", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, Underwriters", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "of Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 1861, Liberty International", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Underwriters, StarNet Insurance Company, and XL Specialty", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Insurance Company,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Appellants-Defendants,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "American Commercial Barge Line, LLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Appellee-Plaintiff.", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "April 28, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals Case No.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "25A-PL-1073", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Appeal from the", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Marion Superior Court", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "The Honorable", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Christina R. Klineman, Judge", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 2 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Trial Court Cause No.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "49D01-2011-PL-40621", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Opinion by Senior Judge Najam", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Judges Kenworthy and Scheele concur.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Najam, Senior Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Statement of the Case", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "[1] In this declaratory judgment action, the question presented is whether there is", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "general commercial liability coverage for environmental contamination at a", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Louisiana shipyard that has been designated as an Environmental Protection", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Agency (EPA) Superfund site. Appellee American Commercial Barge Line", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "(ACBL) is an Indiana company that provides barge transportation services, and", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Appellants Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 1861, Liberty", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "International Underwriters, StarNet Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity &", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Liability Insurance Company, and XL Specialty Insurance Company", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "(collectively “Starr Insurers”) are insurers that issued excess liability policies to", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "ACBL.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "[2] Starr Insurers bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s grant of", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "ACBL’s motion for partial summary judgment on choice of law and its denial", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "of Starr Insurers’ cross-motion for summary judgment on coverage under the", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "excess policies. We affirm the trial court’s grant of ACBL’s motion for partial", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "summary judgment on choice of law, namely, that Indiana law applies.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 3 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "However, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Starr Insurers’ cross-motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "summary judgment and hold that Starr Insurers are entitled to summary", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "judgment on the coverage issue under Indiana law. Thus, we affirm in part,", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "reverse in part, and remand with instructions.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "Facts and Procedural History", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "[3] From 1965 to 1993, an entity known as SBA operated a barge cleaning facility", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "at a shipyard in Jennings, Louisiana. During that time, barges owned by", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "National Marine, ACBL’s predecessor, were delivered to the site to be cleaned.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "Following investigation of the site, the EPA entered into an agreement in", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "December 2002 with SBA and a group of former customers of SBA’s barge", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "cleaning operations, including ACBL.1", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "[4] Later, in 2015, the EPA notified ACBL of its ongoing investigation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "release and/or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "contaminants at the shipyard. The EPA identified ACBL as a potentially", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "responsible party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)2", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "with respect to environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "liability at the shipyard site because the barges owned by ACBL’s predecessor,", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "National Marine, were among those delivered to the site. And in 2016, ACBL", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "1 National Marine merged with ACBL in 1998. Appellants’ App. Vol. 14, p. 7.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "2 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 4 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "entered into an agreement with the EPA and other PRPs. This litigation over", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "ACBL’s insurance coverage is derived from that agreement.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "[5] ACBL filed this declaratory judgment action in November 2020 against Starr", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "Insurers seeking coverage under four umbrella policies for alleged EPA claims", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "of contamination at the SBA shipyard. The policies include three insuring", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "agreements with a single policy limit and single policy premium for maritime", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "and non-maritime risks. Two of the insuring agreements provide traditional", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "maritime coverage, but ACBL seeks coverage only under Insuring Agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "C, which provides umbrella general commercial liability coverage for personal", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "injury and property damage. In January 2021, Starr Insurers filed a", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "counterclaim for declaratory judgment in which it sought a declaration that the", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "policies are governed by the law of the State of New York. It was not until", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "February 2024 that Starr Insurers first suggested that federal admiralty law", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "applies to the policies.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "[6] ACBL moved for partial summary judgment on choice of law, contending that", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "the policies are governed by Indiana law. Starr Insurers responded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "policies are maritime contracts and that federal admiralty law applies. They", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that a certain", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "provision of Insuring Agreement C bars coverage for ACBL’s claims. The", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "provision at issue in this appeal, referred to as the “watercraft limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "provision,” excludes from coverage any property damage “liability arising out", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "of the ownership . . . [or] maintenance . . . of any watercraft.” Appellants’ App.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Vol. 11, pp. 45, 122. The trial court granted ACBL’s motion for partial", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 5 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "summary judgment on choice of law, finding that the excess policies are not", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "maritime contracts, federal admiralty law does not apply, and Indiana law does", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "apply to the policies. The court further denied Starr Insurers’ cross-motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "finding in part that ACBL’s claims are not excluded by the watercraft limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "provision of the excess policies. Starr Insurers now appeal.3", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "Issues", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Starr Insurers raise two issues, which we restate as:", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "I. Whether Indiana law or federal admiralty law applies to ACBL’s", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "excess insurance policies; and", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "II. Whether, under the applicable choice of law, the watercraft", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "limitation provision of the insurance policies bars coverage for", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "ACBL’s liability for environmental contamination at the shipyard.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Discussion and Decision", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "[7] We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same standard", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "as the trial court. Wiley v. United Farm Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 239 N.E.3d 89, 91", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "(Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. Summary judgment is appropriate if the", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Rule 56(C). “[T]he fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "judgment neither alters our standard of review nor changes our analysis—we", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "consider each motion separately to determine whether the moving party is", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "3 We held oral argument in this case on February 11, 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 6 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Dishman v. Henry Cnty. Redevelopment", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Comm’n, 265 N.E.3d 1023, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “Matters involving", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "disputed insurance policy terms present legal questions and are particularly apt", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "for summary judgment.” Erie Indem. Co. for Subscribers at Erie Ins. Exch. v. Est. of", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Harris by Harris, 99 N.E.3d 625, 629 (Ind. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "I. Choice of Law", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "[8] On appeal, just as before the trial court, ACBL maintains that a choice of law", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "determination is necessary because the excess policies under which it is seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "coverage do not contain a choice of law provision. To that end, ACBL", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "contends that in this dispute there are no maritime interests implicated, the", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "dispute is inherently local, and it concerns coverage for an on-shore", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "environmental contaminant release. ACBL further argues that Indiana is the", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "principal location of the insured risk and that, considering the predominant", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "choice of law factors, Indiana law applies. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Pittsburgh, PA v. Standard Fusee Corp., 940 N.E.2d 810, 815-16 (Ind. 2010)", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "(stating that uniform contract interpretation approach applied to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "choice of law in insurance contract cases requires court to first attempt to", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "determine principal location of insured risk).", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "[9] Starr Insurers counter that Indiana law is not controlling because the policies", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "are maritime contracts whose subject matter is maritime commerce and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "policies are therefore governed by federal admiralty law. In a brief overview,", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Starr Insurers describe in general terms the process by which admiralty courts", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 7 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "assess “whether there is an applicable established federal rule, or a policy reason", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "for establishing a new and uniform federal rule.” Appellants’ Reply Br. p. 39.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "And Starr Insurers assert broadly that “there are established rules of federal law", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "governing the issues at hand,” including “general canons of construction” and", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "“[f]ederal maritime principles of contract interpretation,” and that “established", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "federal maritime standards” preclude ACBL’s interpretation of the watercraft", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "limitation provision. Id. at 41, 42.", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "[10] In Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004), the leading case on", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "admiralty jurisdiction, the Supreme Court instructs that in determining whether", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "a contract is a maritime contract, the court should focus its inquiry “on whether", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "the principal objective of a contract is maritime commerce” and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "“touchstone is a concern for the uniform meaning of maritime contracts.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "25, 28. While Kirby is a bill of lading case and does not address whether an", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "umbrella insurance policy is a maritime contract, there are numerous federal", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "maritime insurance cases that have been guided by Kirby’s analysis and", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "precepts.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "[11] Although Starr Insurers urge that, pursuant to Kirby, these excess policies are", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "maritime contracts, they acknowledged at oral argument that the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Court’s opinion in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 348 U.S. 310", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "(1955) “means that if there is no established rule of federal law, then state law", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "applies.” https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=3073", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/7SMD-X73Y] (beginning at 13:01). The Court asked", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "counsel for Starr Insurers: “What is the established rule of federal law then that", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 8 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "we [would be] flouting or thwarting by not treating this as a maritime", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "contract?” And counsel replied: “The issue of whether it’s a maritime contract", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "is separate from whether there’s an established rule of federal law. If . . . it’s a", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "maritime contract, then federal law applies if there’s an established rule. If it’s", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "not a maritime contract, it doesn’t. But whether it’s a maritime contract or not", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "isn’t governed by established rules of federal law. That’s a separate question.”", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "Id. (beginning at 13:06). For its part, ACBL argues that “[e]ven when an", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "insurance policy is a marine contract, state law still applies where no federal", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "statute or judicially established federal admiralty rule applies.” Appellee’s Br.", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "p. 24.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "[12] The response of counsel was correct, but it did not answer the Court’s question.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Starr Insurers challenge the trial court’s ruling that federal admiralty law does", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "not apply. However, it has not shown this Court what established rule of", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "federal law would be frustrated if we were to affirm the trial court and hold that", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "the ACBL excess policies are not maritime contracts and not governed by", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "federal maritime law.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "[13] In Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024),", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "the Supreme Court recently narrowed the holding in Wilburn Boat to its facts but", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "nevertheless reiterated that under Wilburn Boat “state law applie[s] as a gap-filler", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "in the absence of a uniform federal maritime rule.” Raiders Retreat, 601 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "74. Accordingly, even if Starr Insurers were to establish, and we were to hold,", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "that the excess policies are maritime contracts, the second, separate, and", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "essential question would remain unanswered—whether, and if so to what", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 9 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "extent, federal admiralty law applies as well as whether the application of", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Indiana law would interfere with the uniformity of maritime law.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "[14] On this second question, Starr Insurers maintain inconsistent positions in this", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "appeal. In their initial brief, Starr Insurers assert that the policies are maritime", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "contracts governed by federal law even though Insuring Agreement C provides", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "non-maritime general commercial liability coverage. Appellants’ Br. pp. 34, 42.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "And they request that we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "ACBL, including its determinations that the excess policies are not maritime", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "contracts and that Indiana law applies, and that we “declare that federal", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "maritime law governs the policies at issue.” Id. at 49-50.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "[15] Nevertheless, Starr Insurers conclude their opening brief by stating, “In light of", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "the trial court’s erroneous finding that the policies are not governed by federal", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "maritime law, the court did not decide whether the watercraft limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "provision . . . applies under federal law to preclude Insuring Agreement C", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "coverage for ACBL’s pollution liability[]” and that “upon holding [i.e.,", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "assuming] that federal maritime law governs . . . this Court should remand for", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "the trial court to decide those issues in the first instance.” Id. at 49.", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "[16] Likewise, in their reply brief, Starr Insurers assert that on appeal “there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "[trial court] ruling to review” on the federal law issue and that “[t]he question at", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "this stage is . . . whether there is federal law governing the substantive legal", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "issues at hand.” Appellants’ Reply Br. pp. 37, 40. Starr Insurers then conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "that these and other arguments that federal law controls “are all arguments for", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 10 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "another day—on remand.” Id. at 44. Moreover, despite their claim that the", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "policies are governed by admiralty law, Starr Insurers declined to brief the issue", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "and have not shown in this appeal that a judicially established federal rule", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "supplants Indiana law. And as we have noted, at oral argument Starr Insurers", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "demurred when asked to identify the established rule of federal law that we", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "would be thwarting by not treating Insuring Agreement C as a maritime", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "[17] Thus, Starr Insurers appeal from the trial court’s judgment that the policies are", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "not maritime contracts and not governed by federal maritime law but have", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "nonetheless intentionally not conducted the two-stage analysis required both to", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "determine whether the excess policies are maritime contracts and, if so, to what", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "extent federal admiralty law applies. This case has been pending for over five", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "years. We decline Starr Insurers’ invitation to remand this issue, which it", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "briefed to the trial court and which the trial court has already considered and", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "decided. Having appealed the trial court’s choice of law determination, it was", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "incumbent upon Starr Insurers to brief the issue to this Court, including both", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "the substantive law and rules of federal contract construction and their", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "ramifications. “We will not address arguments which are not developed and", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "will not develop arguments for a party to an appeal.” Z.C. v. Rev. Bd. of Indiana", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 213 N.E.3d 1101, 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "[18] An appellant’s brief must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342,", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)). In this", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 11 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "appeal, Starr Insurers have not shown whether this case is “inherently local,”", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "whether it is subject to uniform, established rules of admiralty jurisdiction, and", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "whether applying Indiana law would undermine the uniformity of general", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "maritime law. See Kirby, 543 U.S. at 27-29. As such, Starr Insurers have failed", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "to make a cogent argument supported by authorities as required by Appellate", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Rule 46(A)(8)(a) and have, therefore, waived the argument. See Martin v.", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "Brown, 129 N.E.3d 283, 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (stating that failure to present", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "cogent argument results in waiver of issue on appeal).", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "[19] However, Starr Insurers assert in the alternative that the watercraft limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "provision under Insuring Agreement C unambiguously excludes coverage for", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "ACBL’s pollution liability and that, even under Indiana law, they are entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "judgment on their cross-motion for summary judgment. Since both parties have", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "briefed and argued that issue, to resolve this appeal we need not decide whether", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "the principal objective of the excess policies is maritime commerce as instructed", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "by Kirby, 543 U.S. at 25, whether the policies are maritime contracts, or", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "whether admiralty law applies. Just as in Kirby, we are presented with “a", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "simple question of contract interpretation,” and we will decide this appeal on", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "that basis under Indiana law. Id. at 30.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "II. Watercraft Limitation Provision", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "[20] The watercraft limitation provision excludes from coverage any property", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "damage “liability arising out of the ownership . . . [or] maintenance . . . of any", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "watercraft.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 11, pp. 45, 122 (emphasis added). The", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 12 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "resolution of whether this provision bars coverage for ACBL’s liability for", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "environmental contamination at the shipyard hinges on the meaning of the", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "phrase “liability arising out of.” We note that all four words of the phrase must", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "be considered when answering that question. See Magee v. Garry-Magee, 833", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "N.E.2d 1083, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (stating that court must give meaning", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "to all words in contract).", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "[21] Interpretation of the language of an insurance policy is a question of law that", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "we review de novo. G&G Oil Co. of Ind. v. Cont’l W. Ins. Co., 165 N.E.3d 82, 86", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "(Ind. 2021). And because insurance policies are contracts like any other", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "contract, Justice v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 N.E.3d 1171, 1176 (Ind. 2014), we", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "interpret them according to the same rules of construction as other contracts.", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Jones, 953 N.E.2d 608, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "denied. When confronted with a dispute over the meaning of insurance policy", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "terms, we assign clear and unambiguous policy language its plain, ordinary", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "meaning and construe only those terms that are ambiguous. Erie Indem. Co., 99", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "N.E.3d at 630.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "[22] Our first task, then, is to determine whether the watercraft limitation provision", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "is ambiguous. We are mindful that policy terms are not necessarily ambiguous,", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "and thus subject to judicial construction, merely because they are not defined in", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "the policy or because the parties differ as to their meaning. Ind. Farmers Mut.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "Ins. Co. v. HomeWorks Mgmt. Corp., 201 N.E.3d 666, 671-72 (Ind. Ct. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "2022), trans. denied. Rather, terms are ambiguous only if they are “‘susceptible", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 13 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "to more than one reasonable interpretation.’” G&G Oil Co., 165 N.E.3d at 87", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "(quoting Erie Indem. Co., 99 N.E.3d at 630).", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "[23] When evaluating an alleged ambiguity, we view the insurance policy from the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "perspective of an ordinary policyholder of average intelligence. Id. If", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "reasonably intelligent policyholders would honestly disagree on the meaning of", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "the policy’s language, then we will find the term ambiguous and thus subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "judicial construction. Erie Indem. Co., 99 N.E.3d at 630. Conversely, if", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "reasonably intelligent policyholders could not legitimately disagree as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "meaning of the policy language, we deem the term unambiguous and apply its", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "plain, ordinary meaning. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "[24] Not surprisingly, the parties here present two differing interpretations for the", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "phrase “liability arising out of” in the policies. Starr Insurers insist that the term", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "is unambiguous and that it means a “legal responsibility that originates or stems", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "from” an occurrence. Citing another ACBL case, Starr Insurers contend that", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "under federal admiralty law, when construing maritime contracts, the phrase", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "“arising out of” is broadly construed. See Appellants’ Br. p. 28 (citing Am. Com.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "Barge Line LLC v. Louis Dreyfus Co. LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00274-SEB-DML, at *5", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "(S.D. Ind. Sept. 3, 2020) (mem.)). Accordingly, Starr Insurers contend that the", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "phrase denotes a broad causal nexus that includes ACBL’s CERCLA liability", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "for environmental contamination that stems from its predecessor’s ownership", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "and maintenance of the barges, which contained hazardous waste material and", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "were sent to the SBA shipyard for cleaning.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 14 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "[25] ACBL reasons that, under Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Statesman", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Insurance Co., 291 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. 1973) and its progeny,4", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "the phrase “arising", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "out of” is synonymous with “being caused by” such that the conduct in", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "question is the “efficient and predominating cause” of the occurrence. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "899. Applying this negligence liability analysis, ACBL maintains that the", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "damage at the shipyard did not arise from the cleaning of the barges but rather", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "from SBA’s subsequent improper storage, handling, and treatment of hazardous", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "waste, which led to the contamination. ACBL thus concludes that the", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "watercraft limitation provision does not bar coverage under the policies because", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "neither the ownership nor maintenance of the barges at the shipyard was the", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "“efficient and predominating cause” of the environmental damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "[26] The trial court determined:", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "At issue here is simply this: whether ACBL’s liabilities at the Shipyard", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "arose from the use or maintenance of a watercraft through ACBL’s", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "provision of barges to the Shipyard to be cleaned. From the designated", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "evidence provided to the Court, which is not in dispute, it is clear", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "that the damage at the Shipyard arose from SBA’s improper", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "storage, handling, and treatment of hazardous waste, which led", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "to contamination. It has not been explained, nor can the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "4 Lumbermens’ progeny is abundant. See, e.g., Glob. Caravan Techs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 135 N.E.3d 584", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied; Est. of Curtis by Brade v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 71 N.E.3d 1157 (Ind. Ct. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "2017); Keckler v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 967 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans denied; Sizemore v. Erie Ins.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "Exch., 789 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Purkey, 769 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. Ct. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "2002); Moons v. Keith, 758 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied; Franz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "754 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied; Barga v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Grp., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 575", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "(Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied; Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barron, 615 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans.", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "denied; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Spotten, 610 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied; Sharp v. Ind.", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Union Mut. Ins. Co., 526 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 15 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "speculate, as to why ACBL and its predecessor agreed to assume", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "and face liability for the damage at the Shipyard. The Court", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "makes no finding or determination regarding the liability of", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "ACBL at the Shipyard but instead only determines whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Excess Policies apply to such liability. The Court finds that they", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "do, and specifically that ACBL’s claims are not barred by the", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "Watercraft Limitation. ACBL’s liability does not arise out of the", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "maintenance of a watercraft, but instead arises from SBA’s", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "improper storage, handling, and treatment of hazardous waste.", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "Further, applying Indiana’s longstanding “efficient and predominating", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "cause” test, the Court finds that SBA’s negligence with the hazardous", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "waste—not the cleaning of ACBL’s barges—is the efficient and", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "predominating cause of the contamination at the Shipyard, which caused", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "the damage at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 60 (emphasis added). The trial court correctly", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "defined the issue as whether ACBL’s liability arose from its provision of", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "watercraft to the shipyard to be cleaned. However, the court’s subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "analysis and decision did not focus upon the delivery of the barges to the", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "shipyard. Instead, the court focused upon whether ACBL’s liability at the", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "shipyard was caused by SBA’s barge cleaning operation or its storage, handling,", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "and treatment of the hazardous waste.", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "[27] To define the phrase “arising out of,” the trial court agreed with ACBL and", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "applied the “efficient and predominating cause” negligence analysis from", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Lumbermens. Under this analysis, the court found that the connection between", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "the cleaning of the barges and the environmental contamination was too", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "attenuated to establish that the barge cleaning operation caused the", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "contamination and environmental damage at the shipyard. And while the court", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 16 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "acknowledged the CERCLA strict liability claim against ACBL, it nonetheless", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "rejected Starr Insurers’ contention that regardless of how “arising out of” is", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "defined, ACBL’s coverage claims are barred because ACBL’s liability is defined", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "by CERCLA. The court thus concluded that ACBL’s claims are not barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "the watercraft limitation provision because ACBL’s liability did not ”arise out", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "of” the ownership or maintenance of a watercraft (i.e., the cleaning of the", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "barges).", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "[28] Although the coverage claim is based on ACBL’s strict liability, ACBL", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "contends that principles of common law negligence control whether there is", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "coverage. Appellee’s Br. pp. 20, 35. ACBL asserts that, absent a provision to", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "the contrary, “liability insurance policies do not differentiate between legal", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "theories of liability.” Id. at 35. We agree with that rule, but the rule does not", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "speak to coverage and simply means that the law of contract rather than the", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "theory of liability controls the interpretation of an insurance policy. See, e.g.,", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Stockberger v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 395 N.E.2d 1272, 1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "(“An insurance policy is a contract between two parties; therefore, the law of", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "contract rather than the law of negligence is controlling.”). Moreover, the rule", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "does not mean that when interpreting an insurance contract, the theory of", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "liability is irrelevant and cannot be considered when assessing a coverage claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Rather, the language of a policy is construed in the context of the claim,", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "including the theory of liability and the underlying facts.", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "[29] In this case the theory of liability is strict liability under CERCLA. See 42", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 9607. Within the CERCLA statutory framework, liability for", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 17 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "environmental contamination attaches if the defendant is a “responsible party”", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "under one of the four categories of potentially responsible parties listed in the", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1)-(4). The EPA determined that ACBL became a", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "PRP subject to strict liability under CERCLA when ACBL’s predecessor,", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "National Marine, “arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "transporter for transport for disposal or treatment[,] of hazardous substances” at", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "the shipyard. Appellants’ App. Confid. Vol. 2, p. 163 (EPA’s Administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Settlement Agreement and Order ¶ 26 (Ex. B to Ex. 1 of ACBL’s Motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "Partial Summary Judgment)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) (stating that any", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "person who arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances shall be liable", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "for costs of removal or remedial action, any other necessary costs of response,", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "damages, and costs of health assessments). Simply stated, ACBL is a PRP", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "under CERCLA as an “arranger” or “generator” because its predecessor", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "arranged for barges that it owned and that contained hazardous substances to", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "be delivered to the shipyard for cleaning, an occurrence which triggered", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "ACBL’s strict liability for response costs for environmental contamination at", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "the shipyard.5", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "[30] Our Supreme Court recently explained that strict liability “‘assumes no", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "negligence of the actor[] but chooses to impose liability anyway.’” Cave", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "5 EPA-mandated clean-up and response costs are damages in a commercial general liability policy. Hartford", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "Accident & Indem. Co. v. Dana Corp., 690 N.E.2d 285, 298 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 18 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, 240 N.E.3d 681, 686 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cook v.", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271, 276 (Ind. 2003)). And this Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "acknowledged that liability under CERCLA is strict and that no showing of", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "negligence is required. Kiel Bros. Oil Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of Env’t Mgmt., 819 N.E.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "892, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Western Ohio Pizza, Inc. v. Clark Oil &", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "Refining Corp., 704 N.E.2d 1086, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied), trans.", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "[31] Numerous federal circuit courts have addressed the issue of causation under", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "CERCLA. In Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Minstar, Inc., 41 F.3d 341, 343 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "1994), Judge Posner stated succinctly that “[p]roof of CERCLA liability does", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "not require proof even of negligence . . . CERCLA liability is strict.” Stated", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "more fully, the Seventh Circuit has explained that, under CERCLA, “[l]iability", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "is imposed when a party is found to have a statutorily defined ‘connection’ with", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "the facility; that connection makes the party responsible regardless of causation.”", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "U.S. v. Cap. Tax Corp., 545 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "[32] In United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1988), the Fourth Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "rejected the generator defendants’ contention that the district court had erred", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "when it failed to read into CERCLA section 9607(a)(3) a requirement that the", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "government prove a nexus between the waste they sent to the site and the", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "resulting environmental harm. Id. at 169. The Monsanto court also rejected the", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "generator defendants’ argument that CERCLA requires proof of ownership of", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "the waste at any time later than the time of disposal. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 19 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "[33] In United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 1992), the Third", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "Circuit rejected Alcan’s contention that under CERCLA the government was", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "required to prove that Alcan’s mineral oil emulsion containing hazardous", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "substances deposited at a hazardous waste site had “caused or contributed to", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "the release or the Government’s incurrence of response costs.” Id. at 264. The", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "court also addressed the plain meaning of the CERCLA statute, concluding", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "that:", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "The statute does not, on its face, require the plaintiff to prove that", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "the generator’s hazardous substances themselves caused the release", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "or caused the incurrence of response costs; rather, it requires the", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "plaintiff to prove that the release or threatened release caused the", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "incurrence of response costs, and that the defendant is a", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "generator of hazardous substances at the facility.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "Id. The court then observed that the legislative history supports the position", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "“that CERCLA does not require the plaintiff to establish a specific causal", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "relationship between a generator’s waste and the release or the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "incurrence of response costs.” Id. The court described that history as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "It appears that the early House of Representatives’ version of", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "CERCLA imposed liability upon those persons who “caused or", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "contributed to the release or threatened release.” However, the", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "version ultimately passed by Congress deleted the causation", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "requirement and instead imposed liability upon a class of", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "responsible persons without regard to whether the person", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "specifically caused or contributed to the release and the resultant", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "response costs. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 20 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "In sum, the legislative history indicates that Congress considered and", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "rejected a requirement that the plaintiff establish that the defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "waste caused or contributed to the release or the incurrence of response", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Id. at 264-65 (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "[34] In another Alcan case, the Second Circuit addressed causation under CERCLA", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "and described the imposition of CERCLA liability on a generator under Section", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "9607(a), stating:", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "The plain meaning of this language dictates that the government", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "need only prove: (1) there was a release or threatened release,", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "which (2) caused incurrence of response costs, and (3) that the", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "defendant generated hazardous waste at the clean-up site. What", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "is not required is that the government show that a specific", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "defendant’s waste caused incurrence of clean-up costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 990 F.2d 711, 721 (2d Cir. 1993). The court", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "concluded that “in addition to imposing a strict liability scheme, CERCLA does", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "away with a causation requirement.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "[35] Likewise, in Control Data Corp. v. S.C.S.C. Corp., 53 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 1995), the", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "Eighth Circuit discussed the CERCLA framework and addressed the causation", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "element. The court noted that CERCLA does not require the plaintiff to prove", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "that the defendant caused actual harm to the environment at the liability stage.", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "Id. at 935. And the court concluded that “[h]arm to the environment is material", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "only when allocating responsibility” for the plaintiff’s response costs once", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "liability is established. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 21 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "[36] And in Canadyne-Georgia Corp. v. NationsBank, N.A. (S.), 183 F.3d 1269 (11th", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "Cir. 1999), the Eleventh Circuit summarized CERCLA liability as: “CERCLA", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "does not allocate liability based on fault or negligence; it is a strict liability", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "statute. CERCLA imposes liability on individuals not based on their causing", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "the release of hazardous substances, but based solely on their prior or current", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "relationship to the polluted property.” Id. at 1275 (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "[37] Thus, the nature of CERCLA liability is well settled. Here, liability was", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "imposed because of ACBL’s relationship to the contaminated shipyard site,", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "regardless of ACBL’s fault or negligence. Therefore, as ACBL seeks coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "for the EPA’s CERCLA strict liability claim against it, we must interpret the", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "policies’ phrase “liability arising out of” in the context of strict liability, not", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "negligence. But ACBL misapprehends the operation and effect of CERCLA", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "liability and focuses on whether SBA’s cleaning of the barges was the cause of the", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "contamination at the shipyard. An inquiry into negligent causation and", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "damages is not required to establish ACBL’s CERCLA liability or its coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "[38] Accordingly, the “efficient and predominating cause” test advanced by ACBL", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "is inapposite here because it is a test for causation in negligence and does not", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "apply to strict liability, which attaches without regard to causation. In other", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "words, a test grounded in negligence has no bearing on a reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "interpretation of the phrase “liability arising out of” in the CERCLA context.", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "Thus, ACBL’s attempt to insert a causation element into the CERCLA liability", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "scheme must fail.", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 22 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "[39] Moreover, the goal of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of the", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "parties when they made the agreement. Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "805, 813 (Ind. 2012). And “‘[u]nless the contract provides otherwise, all", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "applicable law in force at the time the agreement is made impliedly forms a part", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "of the agreement,’ because ‘the parties are presumed to have had the law in", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "mind.’” Schwartz v. Heeter, 994 N.E.2d 1102, 1106 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Ethyl", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "Corp. v. Forcum-Lannom Assocs., Inc., 433 N.E.2d 1214, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "1982)). When considering now, many years after the fact, whether there is", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "more than one reasonable interpretation of the phrase “liability arising out of”", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "as it is used in the excess policies, we must ask whether when the excess policies", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "were issued, there was Indiana law holding that the “efficient and", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "predominating cause” test for negligent causation applies to a strict liability", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "claim. There was no such law then, and there is none now. Thus, the notion", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "that an efficient and predominating cause was required as a condition precedent", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "to strict liability could not have been a reasonable interpretation of “liability", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "arising out of” within the contemplation of the parties when the policies were", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "issued.", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "[40] We conclude that in this strict liability case the phrase “liability arising out of”", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "is unambiguous, is not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "does not require judicial construction. Accordingly, we will apply the plain and", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "ordinary meaning to determine whether ACBL’s liability arose out of its", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "ownership or maintenance of the barges. See Erie Indem. Co., 99 N.E.3d at 630.", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 23 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "[41] One dictionary defines liability as “[t]he quality, state, or condition of being", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "legally obligated or accountable” and alternatively as “legal responsibility to", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "another or to society.” Liability, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed.", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "2024). Another defines liability as the “state of being liable,” where liable", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "means “obligated according to law” or “responsible.” https://www.merriam-", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "webster.com/dictionary/liability [https://perma.cc/Z547-RRHE] (last visited", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "April 21, 2026); https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liable", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/LT5E-YBWN] (last visited April 21, 2026). As to the term", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "“arise,” one authority defines it as “to come into being” or “to originate from a", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "source.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arise", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "[https://perma.cc/7KP6-TQDF] (last visited April 21, 2026). Additional", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "definitions include: “[t]o originate; to stem (from)” and “[t]o result (from).”", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "Arise, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). Here, the plain and", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "ordinary meaning of the phrase “liability arising out of” in these policies is", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "“legal accountability derived from.”", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "[42] ACBL’s strict liability and these dictionary definitions together inform our", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "understanding of the plain meaning of the policies’ phrase “liability arising out", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "of.” As determined by the EPA, the CERCLA claim against ACBL which", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "triggered ACBL’s strict liability is derived from its predecessor’s act of arranging", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "for barges containing hazardous substances to be delivered to the shipyard.", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "Nothing else was required for CERCLA liability to attach. This liability, then,", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "clearly and unmistakably arises out of the predecessor’s ownership of the", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "barges. On these facts the phrase “liability arising out of” in ACBL’s policies", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026 Page 24 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "can have no other reasonable meaning. ACBL’s derivative liability did not", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "arise out of the cleaning of the barges by SBA but out of its predecessor’s", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "ownership of watercraft containing hazardous substances delivered to the", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "shipyard.", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "[43] In sum, ACBL’s CERCLA liability arose out of and attached upon the delivery", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "of barges owned by ACBL’s predecessor to the shipyard for cleaning, which, in", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "turn, triggered the watercraft limitation on coverage. The liability did not arise", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "out of, and was not contingent upon, either the subsequent cleaning of the", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "barges or, as ACBL alleges, the improper storage, handling, and treatment of", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "hazardous material at the shipyard. A traditional common law negligence", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "analysis of the factual basis for the CERCLA claim is both unnecessary and", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "inapposite. In this strict liability case, the Lumbermens “efficient and", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "predominating cause” test for negligent causation does not apply to the", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "watercraft limitation provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "[44] We therefore conclude that the phrase “liability arising out of” is unambiguous", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "in the context of this CERCLA strict liability claim. We hold that under", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "Indiana law the watercraft limitation provision precludes coverage for ACBL.", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "And we affirm the trial court’s grant of ACBL’s motion for partial summary", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "judgment on the choice of law, reverse its denial of Starr Insurers’ cross-motion", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "for summary judgment on coverage, and instruct the trial court to enter", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "summary judgment for Starr Insurers.", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "Page 25 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "[45] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "Kenworthy, J., and Scheele, J., concur.", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "Kenneth C. Newa", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "Jeffrey C. Gerish", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "Plunkett Cooney", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Bloomfield Hills, Michigan", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "Agelo L. Reppas", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "Colleen P. Sorensen", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "BatesCarey LLP", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "Chicago, Illinois", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "Eric B. Hermanson", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "White & Williams LLP", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "Boston, Massachusetts", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "Peter M. Racher", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "Ryan T. Leagre", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "Joanne R. Sommers", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "Indianapolis, Indiana", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "UNITED POLICYHOLDERS", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "Thomas F. O’Gara", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "Bose McKinney & Evans", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "Indianapolis, Indiana", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1073 | April 28, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_596" } ], "word_count": 6436, "cites": [ "543 U.S. 14", "348 U.S. 310", "601 U.S. 65", "41 F.3d 341", "545 F.3d 525", "858 F.2d 160", "964 F.2d 252", "990 F.2d 711", "53 F.3d 930", "183 F.3d 1269" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "2124f64a549eb8bb5da9e7f72d37c463bb0005367427b36fb536d7d38f46c1d5", "source_url": "https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=eozN6gco4csIWuLa3s6CmqIR2Br07kNKx2sl-uKGjvrYNignNHGrLqKOlhossxoq0", "fetched_at": "2026-10-11T20:52:26.769+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "2124f64a549eb8bb5da9e7f72d37c463bb0005367427b36fb536d7d38f46c1d5", "recomputed_sha256": "2124f64a549eb8bb5da9e7f72d37c463bb0005367427b36fb536d7d38f46c1d5", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-11T20:52:28.944Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:7252ec0d06d96fc5a6ee08ab753551dd34ac166e320ca853528e3842367b130d", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "expires": "2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T20:37:51", "content_hash": "sha256:7252ec0d06d96fc5a6ee08ab753551dd34ac166e320ca853528e3842367b130d", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-11T21:52:29.079Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:indctapp-25a-pl-01073-2026-04-28" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }