North River Insurance Company v. Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc.

── North River Insurance Company v. Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc. ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Paul Mathias Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana North River Insurance Company and RiverStone Claims Management LLC, FILED Appellants-Defendants May 13 2026, 9:07 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court v. Court of Appeals and Tax Court Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc., Appellee-Plaintiff May 13, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-375 Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-2107-PL-79 Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-375 | May 13, 2026 Page 1 of 18  Vaidik, Judge. Case Summary [1] Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc. (“Landis”) sued North River Insurance Company and RiverStone Claims Management LLC seeking insurance coverage for remediation of pollution at a former manufacturing site. The trial court entered partial summary judgment for Landis, awarding it over $10,000,000. North River and RiverStone jointly appeal. We reverse and remand for the entry of summary judgment for North River and RiverStone on all of Landis’s claims. Facts and Procedural History [2] In the early 1950s, Duncan Electric Company, Inc., began manufacturing operations at 3601 Sagamore Parkway North in Lafayette (“the Lafayette Site”). Duncan used various solvents in those operations, including trichloroethylene (“TCE”). In 1976, Landis, a New York company with operations in multiple states and Canada, acquired Duncan. 1 [3] That year and the next, North River issued three excess liability insurance policies to Landis. The first policy—covering February 5, 1976, through 1 There have been many “Landis” entities involved in the 50-year history of this case, and the entities that acquired Duncan and bought the North River policies didn’t have the name of the plaintiff/appellant here, “Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc.” In fact, the parties dispute whether “Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc.” is an insured under the policies and the proper plaintiff in this case. Because North River and RiverStone prevail on other grounds, we need not resolve this issue, and we use “Landis” throughout the opinion for ease of reference. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-375 | May 13, 2026 Page 2 of 18  February 5, 1977—and the second policy—covering February 5, 1977, through October 1, 1977—provided limits of $7,000,000 per occurrence in excess of at least $1,000,000. The third policy—covering October 1, 1977, through October 20, 1978—provided limits of $5,000,000 per occurrence in excess of at least $1,000,000. The applications for the first two policies identified three insured premises: one in New York, one in California, and one in Canada. An endorsement to the third policy identified 11 named insureds and locations: five in New York, two in Indiana (including Duncan), two in Ohio, and one each in California and Florida. [4] The North River policies include the following provisio