Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
General Housewares Corp. v. National Surety Corp.green2 sentences2015“Simply put, the known loss doctrine states that one may not obtain insurance for a loss that has already taken place.” Id. .at 413. 2014Housewares Corp., 741 N.E.2d at 413 . “[T]he known loss doctrine is not so much an exception, limitation, or exclusion as it is a principle intrinsic to the very concept of insurance.” Id. at 415 . “[I]f an insured has actual knowledge that a loss has occurred, is occurring, or is substantially certain to occur on or before the effective date of the policy, the known loss doctrine will bar coverage.” Id. at 414 . | 4 | 8 |
American Family Mutual Insurance v. American Girl, Inc.green2 sentences2015Girl, Inc., 268 Wis.2d 16 , 673 N.W.2d 65, 85-86 (2004) (discussing the known-loss doctrine). 2015Girl, Inc., 268 Wis.2d 16 , 673 N.W.2d 65, 85-86 (2004) (discussing the known-loss doctrine). | 1 | 2 |
Crawfordsville Square, LLC v. Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 906 N.E.2d 934 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied, we applied the known loss doctrine in a scenario very similar to the present one. 2012Co., 906 N.E.2d 934, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied, Appellants' Brief at 35-36, we note that this court in Crawfordsville Square held that mere knowledge on the part of an insurer that a dry cleaner was operating on a parcel does not create a genuine issue of material fact that the insurer had "actual knowledge of actionable levels of dry cleaning-related contamination" in the context of the known loss doctrine which is "inapplicable if the insurer also knew of the circumstances on which it bases the defense.” 906 N.E.2d at 941 (quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.green1 sentence2025Co. v. Kopetsky, 14 N.E.3d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), modifying 11 N.E.3d 508 ). | 1 | 1 |
Thomson Inc. n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America n/k/a Century Indemnity Company, and XL Insurance Americagreen1 sentence2025Co. of N. Am., et al., 11 N.E.3d 982, 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Gen. | 1 | 1 |
GKN Co. v. Starnes Trucking, Inc.green1 sentence2016If a potential future liability “is a harsh burden that a party would not lightly accept,” GKN Co. v. Starnes Trucking, Inc., 798 N.E.2d 548, 552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), then actual retroactive liability for a known loss is harsher still—indeed, it would ordinarily be a fool’s bargain. | 1 | 1 |
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences2014In Rohm & Haas Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 566 Pa. 464 , 781 A.2d 1172 (2001), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the known loss doctrine applies if an insured was aware or should have been aware of likely future losses. 2014In Rohm & Haas Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 566 Pa. 464 , 781 A.2d 1172 (2001), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the known loss doctrine applies if an insured was aware or should have been aware of likely future losses. | 1 | 1 |
HSB Group, Inc. v. SVB Underwriting, Ltd.green2 sentences2014See HSB Group, Inc. v. SVB Underwriting, Ltd., 664 F. Supp. 2d 158, 184 (D. 2014See HSB Group, Inc. v. SVB Underwriting, Ltd., 664 F.Supp.2d 158, 184 (D.Conn.2009). | 1 | 1 |
Sutton v. Roth, Wehrly, Heiny, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Sutton v. Roth, Wehrly, Heiny, Inc. (1981) Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 229, 232 (holding that, in a breach of contract action, defendant has burden of proof on any matters of avoidance) trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
United Theological Seminary v. Estate of Burkhartgreen1 sentence2000See United Theological Seminary v. Estate of Burkhart (1986) Ind.App., 494 N.E.2d 361, 366 (noting that a corporation works exclusively through the acts of its agents) trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pittston Company v. Allianz Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2012Id. | 5 | 2000–2014 |
Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Co. v. Kopetsky, 14 N.E.3d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), modifying 11 N.E.3d 508 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States Liability Insurance v. Selman
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 690 . 2009In so doing, the court held, inter alia, that "the applicability vel mon of the known loss doctrine ... depends on the insured's actual knowledge of the looming loss." Id. at 691 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
CPC Intern., Inc. v. HARTFORD ACC.
green
2 sentences2000Co. (1998), 316 N.J.Super. 351 , 720 A.2d 408, 422 , certification denied (1999) 158 N.J. 73 , 74, 726 A.2d 937 , wherein the court stated, “As long as there remains uncertainty about damage or injury that may occur during the policy period and the imposition of liability upon the insured, and no legal obligation to pay third party claims has been established, ... there is a potentially insurable risk for which coverage may be sought.” Notwithstanding this view, we hold that there is a distinct difference between knowledge of the existence of liability and knowledge of the full extent of liabi 2000Co. (1998), 316 N.J.Super. 351 , 720 A.2d 408, 422 , certification denied (1999) 158 N.J. 73 , 74, 726 A.2d 937 , wherein the court stated, “As long as there remains uncertainty about damage or injury that may occur during the policy period and the imposition of liability upon the insured, and no legal obligation to pay third party claims has been established, ... there is a potentially insurable risk for which coverage may be sought.” Notwithstanding this view, we hold that there is a distinct difference between knowledge of the existence of liability and knowledge of the full extent of liabi | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.