The Indiana Supreme Court won't be asked to rule whether a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency notifying a party of its potential Superfund liability triggers the insurers' duty to defend (Am. Chem. Serv., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 2015 BL 176514, N.D. Ind., No. 13-CV-177, 6/4/15). the state high court already declined to address the question, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana said, refusing to certify the issue. American Chemical Service Inc. filed suit against its insurers, in connection with a letter sent by the EPA to American notifying the company it was a potentially responsible party under the Superfund law for the cleanup of contamination at a landfill. American alleged the insurers beached their duty to defend. The court ruled in April 2015 that United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. breached its duty to defend, citing Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Dana Corp., 690 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). The insurer challenged the ruling. Denying the motion, the court said the Indiana high court declined to review the decision in Dana.
展开▼
机译：不会要求印第安纳州最高法院裁定环境保护署（EPA）的一封信通知当事方其潜在的超级基金责任是否会触发保险人的辩护责任（Am。Chem。Serv。，Inc.诉United States Fid。 ＆Guar.Co.，2015 BL 176514，ND Ind。，No.13-CV-177，6/4/15）。美国印第安纳州北区地方法院拒绝透露该问题，州高级法院已拒绝解决该问题。美国化学服务公司（American Chemical Service Inc.）针对其保险公司提起诉讼，涉及美国环境保护署（EPA）给美国的一封信，通知该公司根据超级基金法，它可能是负责清理垃圾掩埋场的潜在责任方。美国航空称，保险公司放弃了捍卫职责。法院于2015年4月以Hartford Accident＆Indem案为由裁定，美国富达担保公司违反了其辩护义务。 Co.诉Dana Corp.，690 N.E.2d 285（Ind。Ct。App。1997）。保险人对该裁定提出质疑。法院驳回了动议，称印第安纳州高等法院拒绝复审达纳的裁决。
展开▼
