(216) 609-3940
SandRun Risk
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Risk Management
    • Insurance Claims
    • Insurance Archaeology
  • Blog
  • About
    • Team
    • Our Company
    • Articles
  • Contact

Voluntary Payments Defense – Not a Viable Defense to Defeat Coverage When Insurance Carriers Refuse to Make a Coverage Determination

9/4/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture

What is a policyholder to do when it puts its insurance carriers on notice of a claim, but the insurance carrier does not acknowledge coverage and leaves its policyholder to its own devices to defend and settle the claim, then later claims that the policyholder breached the insurance policy by defending and settling the claim without its consent? ​

​In Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 582 (1994, the insurance carrier was given notice of the suit, but took the position that coverage was not available under the policies, and refused to defend the suit or participate in any settlement negotiations. The policyholders settled the claim by admitting liability and allowing the court to determine the amount of damages. The Ohio Supreme Court held “Where an insurer unjustifiably refuses to defend an action, leaving the insureds to fend for themselves, the insureds are at liberty to make a reasonable settlement without prejudice to their rights under the contract. By abandoning the insureds to their own devices in resolving the suit, the insurer voluntarily forgoes the right to control the litigation and, consequently, will not be heard to complain concerning the resolution of the action in the absence of a showing of fraud, even if liability is conceded by the insureds as a part of settlement negotiations.” Id. at 587. 

Even if the voluntary payments condition applies, whether an insurance carrier is released from its coverage obligations may depend on whether it was prejudiced by the alleged violation. See, e.g., Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 781 N.E.2d 927, syllabus (2002) (defenses based on violation of consent-to-settle provisions may be rebutted by proof that the insurance carrier was not prejudiced); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Insurance Co., 370 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Insurance carriers often raise the voluntary payment argument to try and defeat coverage for CERCLA claims presented to them by their policyholders. Most courts that have addressed the voluntary payments issue have found that the severe penalties to be incurred by non-compliance in a CERCLA action renders a policyholder’s “voluntary” participation to be “damages” and not “voluntary” at all. See e.g., SnyderGeneral Corp. v. Century Indem. Co. 113 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 1997) (Texas law); Hazen Paper Co. v. U.S. Fid & Guar., 555 N.E.2d 576 (Mass. 1990); Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co., 941 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. 1997).
​

In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Wausau Chem. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Wisc. 1992), the insurance carriers argued that they were not obligated to provide coverage to their policyholder, Wausau Chemical, for response costs pursuant to the 1990 consent decree because the insurance policies at issue contained language that "the insured shall not, except at his own cost, voluntarily make any payment, assume any obligation or incur any expense," and that by agreeing to take remedial measures under the consent decree, Wausau Chemical breached this provision. Wausau Chemical responded that claims by the EPA can hardly be termed "voluntary" because of the consequences that await potentially responsible parties who decline to participate in negotiations and force the EPA to remediate the site itself and sue later to recover costs. These consequences include punitive damages penalties of up to three times the cleanup costs, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606(b), 9607(a), and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000 per day, see 42. U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5)(B) (1992). Wausau Chemical argued that the only realistic alternative for a potentially responsible party is to engage in settlement negotiations and agree to perform remedial actions. The court agreed with Wausau Chemical:   

                            The legislative history of CERCLA provides evidence that the stiff penalties for failure
                            to negotiate with EPA were intended to make the primary force behind cleanup
                            efforts voluntary settlements, rather than drawn-out litigation.  See H.R. Rep. No. 253,
                            99th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 at 101 (1985) ("negotiated private party actions are essential
                            to an effective program for cleanup of the nation's hazardous waste sites and it is
                            the intent of this Committee to encourage private party cleanup at all sites"). To hold
                            that such settlements are "voluntary" for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion
                            would frustrate the intent of Congress. . . .

                            In failing to take any affirmative steps to intervene at that point, the insurers could
                            not attempt to exclude coverage now because the agreement was "voluntary." See
                            
Broadhead v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 773 F. Supp. 882, 895 (S.D. Miss. 1991)("it is generally
                           recognized that once an insurer denies coverage and liability, the insured has the right
                           to settle with its claimant rather than proceed to trial"); Chemical Applications Co. v. Home
                           Indem., 425 F. Supp. 777, 779 (D. Mass. 1977)
("an insurer who refuses to defend a suit
                           at all may not assert that the insured's reasonable settlement was unauthorized [under a
                           voluntary payment exclusion clause]"). Because the insurers responded to notice of
                           the Potentially Responsible Party letter by expressing their intention to remain
                           uninvolved and deny coverage at all costs, forcing Wausau Chemical to go it alone,
                           they cannot now assert that a cost-saving settlement was voluntary and was excluded
                           under the policy. Id. at 695-696.   

The primary purpose of policy provisions prohibiting a policyholder from making a voluntary payment, i.e., settling a claim without the insurance company’s consent, is to prevent fraud or collusion between the claimant and the policyholder. The voluntary payment issue cannot be used as a defense to defeat coverage when a policyholder is required to take action to protect its own interests for many months before its insurance carrier made a decision on coverage. 

​In CERCLA actions, a policyholder cannot refuse to meet with or work with government environmental protection agencies merely because the insurance carrier has been unable to decide on coverage for several months.  Insurance carriers will be hard pressed to prove fraud and collusion by their policyholder under these circumstances. 

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Authors

    Lori Siwik and Mark Siwik are the founders of SandRun Risk.  They apply the principles of vertical leadership and lean six sigma to the discipline of risk management.  From time to time they share their blog with guest authors who write about important risk management principles.

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    Archives

    May 2022
    December 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    RSS Feed

What We Do.

Risk Management
Insurance Claims
Insurance Archaeology

Blog.

About.

Team
Our Company
Articles

Contact.

Legal.

Privacy
Terms of Use
 
Copyright ©2014 | 4199 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Ste. 275 Richfield, Ohio 44286 | 216-609-3940 | info@sandrunrisk.com