OPINION

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

This is the second appeal in this case. FLM, LLC ("FLM"), owns land in Indianapolis that it leased to International Recycling Inc. ("IRI"). IRI retrieved foundry sand from a Chrysler foundry and stored it on the leased property until it could be disposed of elsewhere. Chrysler stopped paying IRI, which consequently went out of business and abandoned 100,000 tons of sand on FLM's property. Environmental and legal problems ensued, and FLM sought indemnification from The Cincinnati Insurance Company ("Cincinnati"), IRI's insurer. Cincinnati filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that no property damage coverage is available under its policies. FLM filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting that both property damage coverage and personal injury coverage are available under Cincinnati's commercial general liability ("CGL") and commercial umbrella policies. The trial court issued an order granting Cincinnati's motion "as against any insurance coverage obligation." Appellant's App. at 2174.

FLM appealed and again asserted that both personal injury coverage and property damage coverage are available under Cincinnati's policies. A divided panel of this Court issued an opinion in that appeal. In FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied (2013), the majority noted that several issues had been raised but found one issue dispositive: whether IRI's abandonment of the sand is covered by the personal injury provisions of Cincinnati's policies. The majority held that it is and did not address property damage coverage. The last line of the majority opinion states: "We therefore reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati and remand with instruction to enter summary judgment in favor of FLM." Id. at 1177. The third judge disagreed with the majority's holding but concurred in result on the basis that property damage coverage is available under the policies. Cincinnati filed a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was denied.

The trial court then asked FLM and Cincinnati to submit proposed orders pursuant to the Court of Appeals' remand. FLM submitted a proposed order finding that both personal injury coverage and property damage coverage are available under the policies, vacating the trial court's prior order, denying Cincinnati's motion for partial summary judgment, and granting FLM's cross-motion for summary judgment. Cincinnati did not submit a proposed order and was granted an opportunity to file an objection or a response to FLM's proposed order. Cincinnati did not file an objection but did file an interpleader motion paying $1.7 million into the trial court ($ 1 million for the personal injury coverage limits under the CGL policy plus the $1 million aggregate limits under the umbrella policy, minus $300,000 that was paid to a third party). FLM filed a response to the interpleader motion asserting that it is entitled to the $1.7 million and reserving the right to claim that the remaining limits exceed $1.7 million.

After a hearing, the trial court signed FLM's proposed order and an entry stating that the parties had agreed that the order should be entered; that the interpleaded funds should be ordered paid to FLM; and that further issues remained regarding whether additional coverage was available under the policies. FLM filed a summary judgment motion asserting that the CGL policy contains separate $1 million limits for property damage coverage and personal injury coverage. Cincinnati filed a response and a motion to reconsider, rescind and/or modify the trial court's remand order asserting that no court had determined that property damage coverage was available and that Cincinnati had not agreed that the entry of FLM's proposed order was proper. After a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting Cincinnati's motion to reconsider and striking all references to property damage coverage from its prior order. The trial court also issued an order denying FLM's summary judgment motion as to separate coverage limits, entering judgment for FLM on coverage only as to personal injury, and decreeing that the $1.7 million limits of the policies had been interpleaded and released to FLM in full satisfaction of the judgment.

FLM now appeals, raising three issues: (1) whether Cincinnati waived any challenge to FLM's proposed order by failing to make a timely objection and expressly agreeing to it; (2) whether property damage coverage is available under the CGL policy; and (3) whether the CGL policy has separate $1 million limits for property damage coverage and personal injury coverage. We decide these issues as follows: (1) regardless of any waiver by Cincinnati, the trial court had inherent power to reconsider and revise its nonfinal order; (2) property damage coverage is available under the CGL policy; and (3) the CGL policy has separate $1 million limits for property damage coverage and personal injury coverage. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in FLM's favor as to property damage coverage and separate coverage limits. The amount of coverage over $1.7 million to which FLM may be entitled must be determined in further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History1

The relevant facts are largely undisputed. In 1999, FLM leased some Indianapolis property to IRI, which retrieved foundry sand from a Chrysler foundry and stored it on the property until it could be disposed of elsewhere. In 2002, Chrysler stopped paying IRI, which consequently went out of business and abandoned over 100,000 tons of sand on FLM's property. CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX"), which owned and operated an adjacent railroad right-of-way, complained that the sand was migrating onto its property and interfering with its operations. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") investigated complaints about the sand and issued a notice of violation to IRI, FLM, and Chrysler in 2004 and ordered them to remove the sand. Also, the City of Indianapolis ("the City") issued a notice of municipal code violation to FLM due to sand migration and "ordered that sediment controls be installed and that the sand be removed unless a drainage permit was obtained. FLM, in turn, sought indemnity under the lease from IRI." Id. at 1171.

In 2005, FLM filed a complaint against Cincinnati, IRI's insurer, seeking a declaration that IRI has coverage under its CGL policy and umbrella policy "for the environmental liabilities asserted by IDEM and the City, as well as FLM's own action against IRI arising from those claims." Id. at 1172 (footnote omitted). Cincinnati filed its answer and counterclaim, seeking a declaration that no coverage is available under the policies. Cincinnati also filed a third-party complaint for declaratory judgment "in order to bring Chrysler, IRI, IDEM, and the City as indispensable parties into the coverage action." Id. "CSX filed a cross-complaint against IRI and FLM seeking trespass and nuisance damages related to the migration of foundry sand onto its property." Id.

In December 2007, Cincinnati filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting a determination that no coverage exists under the policies for the claims made by IDEM, the City, Chrysler, or FLM against IRI; the motion specifically excluded CSX's claims. In February 2008, FLM filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that coverage is available for those claims, including those made by CSX, under both the property damage and personal injury provisions in the policies. "Chrysler opposed Cincinnati's motion, joined FLM's cross-motion and filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment." Id. In November 2008, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment to Cincinnati "as against any insurance coverage obligation" as to the claims made by IDEM, the City, and FLM, as well as denying FLM's cross-motion for summary judgment. Appellant's App. at 2174. The court also denied Chrysler's cross-motion for summary judgment as moot.

Both FLM and Chrysler filed an appeal, which was delayed several years by Chrysler's bankruptcy. While the appeal was pending, Cincinnati settled with CSX for $300,000. In August 2012, a divided panel of this Court issued an opinion in that appeal. The majority (Judge Kirsch, joined by Judge Vaidik) stated, "FLM and Chrysler appeal raising several issues, of which we find the following dispositive: whether IRI's abandonment of sand constitutes a `wrongful entry' or `invasion of the right of private occupancy' covered by the `personal injury' provisions of the insurance policies." FLM, 973 N.E.2d at 1169-70. The majority held that it does and stated: "We therefore reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati and remand with instruction to enter summary judgment in favor of FLM." Id. at 1177. The majority did not address property damage coverage. Judge Bradford disagreed with the majority's holding but concurred in result on the basis that property damage coverage is available under the policies. Cincinnati filed a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was denied in April 2013.

On May 6, 2013, the trial court asked the parties to submit proposed orders or an agreed proposed order pursuant to this Court's remand. On May 9, 2013, FLM submitted a proposed order to the trial court and Cincinnati finding coverage under both the personal injury and property damage provisions of the policies, vacating the trial court's prior order, denying Cincinnati's motion for partial summary judgment, and granting FLM's cross-motion for summary judgment. Cincinnati did not submit a proposed order and instead was granted until May 31, 2013, to file an objection or a response to FLM's proposed order. Cincinnati did not file an objection but did file an interpleader motion paying $1.7 million into the trial court ($ 1 million for the personal injury limits under the CGL policy plus the $ 1 million aggregate limits under the umbrella policy, minus the $300,000 that was paid to CSX). FLM filed a response to the interpleader motion asserting that it was entitled to the entire $1.7 million. In a footnote, FLM stated, "By responding to Cincinnati's `Interpleader' and asserting a claim for the deposited funds, FLM does not concede that $1.7 million is the remaining balance. To the contrary, FLM expressly reserves the right to claim that the remaining limits exceed $1.7 million." Appellant's App. at 2191 n. 1.

The trial court held a hearing on July 10, 2013. FLM's counsel, George Plews, stated, "You got no objections from anybody [on FLM's proposed order] and so we think that one probably should be entered." Tr. at 6.2 When the trial court asked if the parties still had "differences" regarding the interpleader, Plews replied,

Id. at 7-8. After a brief discussion about policy limits, the following colloquy occurred:

Id. at 11-12. The trial court asked Plews for his thoughts:

Id. at 13-14.

The parties agreed to further briefing on the limits issue, and the trial court said, "So I guess what I'm going to do as a result of this discussion or hearing is enter by everybody's agreement I guess [FLM's] Proposed Order Granting their Motion for Summary Judgment." Id. at 32. The trial court signed the order ("the July 10 Order") that day. The court also signed an entry that reads in pertinent part as follows:

Appellant's App. at 2254.

On August 2, 2013, Skiles and his cocounsel filed a motion to withdraw their appearance, which the trial court granted. Cincinnati retained new counsel. On August 9, 2013, FLM filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Cincinnati's CGL policy "contains separate, independent liability limits of $1 million each for both `property damage' and `personal injury' coverages." Id. at 2258. On September 9, 2013, Cincinnati filed a response to FLM's summary judgment motion and a motion to reconsider, rescind and/or modify the July 10 Order that reads in pertinent part as follows:

Id. at 2430-31.

The trial court held a hearing on the motions on September 27, 2013. Plews stated that Cincinnati had until May 31 "to make any objection if they wanted to make [to FLM's proposed order] and they didn't do it. And that's a waiver." Tr. at 42. He later explained,

Id. at 48. Plews further observed that the Court of Appeals' majority did not hold that IRI is not entitled to property damage coverage and that the third judge would have held that it is. He also argued that FLM is entitled to separate $ 1 million limits for personal injury coverage and property damage coverage under the CGL policy. The trial court invited the parties to submit proposed orders, which they did.

On December 16, 2013, the trial court issued an order granting Cincinnati's motion to reconsider that reads in pertinent part as follows:

Appellant's App. at 36-37.

The trial court also issued an order denying FLM's summary judgment motion that reads in pertinent part as follows:

Id. at 39-41.

FLM now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 — Has Cincinnati Waived Any Challenge to the July 10 Order?

FLM argues that "Cincinnati waived any objection to the entry of the July 10, 2013 order and expressly agreed to its entry. Both acts bound it, and no basis or need justified disturbing that judgment." Appellant's Br. at 25. FLM's waiver argument is well taken, but, as Cincinnati observes, this Court has "`long and consistently held a trial court has inherent power to reconsider, vacate, or modify any previous order so long as the case has not proceeded to final judgment.'" Appellee's Br. at 13-14 (quoting Haskell v. Peterson Pontiac GMC Trucks, 609 N.E.2d 1160, 1163 (Ind.Ct.App.1993)); see also Ind. Trial Rule 54(B) (stating that nonfinal judgments are "subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties").

Consequently, we do not address FLM's waiver argument and instead will determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in revising the July 10 Order. See In re Hammar, 847 N.E.2d 960, 962 (Ind.2006) ("A trial court's control and discretion to change its own rulings is firmly established in common law, and we will review a trial court's reconsideration of its prior rulings for abuse of discretion."). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplied the law." Brown v. Brown, 979 N.E.2d 684, 685 (Ind. Ct.App.2012).

Section 2 — Is Property Damage Coverage Available Under the CGL Policy?

Before we may consider this question, we must first address whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that this Court affirmed its prior determination that no property damage coverage exists. In the first appeal, the majority reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Cincinnati and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of FLM as to personal injury coverage. "Generally, the effect of reversal by the Court of Appeals is to vacate and nullify a trial court's judgment and return the parties to the positions they held before its entry by the trial court." Greater Clark Cnty. Sch. Corp. v. Myers, 493 N.E.2d 1267, 1270 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), trans. denied (1987). That is what happened here. The majority did not address the issue of property damage coverage and did not specifically disagree with Judge Bradford's determination that property damage coverage exists. So, although the majority could have (and indeed should have) addressed property damage coverage in response to FLM's argument that both coverages apply, it simply passed on the issue and did not affirm the trial court's judgment, either implicitly or explicitly.3 The trial court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise.

Because property damage coverage is ripe for consideration, we now address it on the merits. "The interpretation of an insurance policy is primarily a question of law and, therefore, is a question particularly suited for summary judgment." FLM, 973 N.E.2d at 1174. "Insurance policies are governed by the same rules of construction as other contracts and unambiguous terms in policies are given their ordinary meaning." Keckler v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 967 N.E.2d 18, 22 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied. "We interpret policy terms from the perspective of an ordinary policyholder of average intelligence." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). "An insurance contract is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation and reasonably intelligent persons would honestly differ as to its meaning." FLM, 973 N.E.2d at 1174 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Where there is an ambiguity, policies are to be construed strictly against the insurer." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The CGL policy states that Cincinnati "will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of `bodily injury' or `property damage' to which this insurance applies." Appellant's App. at 165. The insurance applies to "property damage" only if it "is caused by an `occurrence' that takes place in the `coverage territory'" and "occurs during the policy period." Id. The policy defines "property damage" in pertinent part as "[p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property." Id. at 175. "Occurrence" is defined as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." Id. The term "accident" is not defined.

We agree with FLM that property damage coverage is available under the CGL policy, for the reasons stated in Judge Bradford's separate opinion in the first appeal. He noted that the parties' arguments focused on the meaning of the undefined term "accident":

FLM, 973 N.E.2d at 1178-79 (footnote omitted). In the footnote, Judge Bradford noted "one procedural distinction with Harvey":

Id. at 1179 n. 9.

We find Judge Bradford's reasoning persuasive and see no need to reinvent the wheel here. See also Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Vernon Drop Forge, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 1258, 1271-72 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (finding occurrence/accident under CGL policy where insured intentionally deposited fill dirt on another's property but did not intend to contaminate property), trans. denied (2010). Property damage coverage is available under the CGL policy, and the trial court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in FLM's favor on this issue.

Section 3 — Does the CGL Policy Allow Separate $1 Million Limits?

Now that we have determined that both personal injury coverage and property damage coverage are available under the CGL policy, the question then becomes whether the policy allows separate $1 million limits for each coverage. "Insurers are free to limit the coverage of their policies, but such limitations must be clearly expressed to be enforceable." State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flexdar, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ind.2012).

The CGL policy's table of contents indicates that the policy has three coverages: occurrence-based bodily injury and property damage liability under Coverage A, offense-based personal and advertising injury liability under Coverage B,4 and medical payments under Coverage C. Appellant's App. at 164. The CGL policy's declarations page reads in pertinent part as follows:

LIMITS OF INSURANCE
EACH OCCURRENCE LIMIT                             $1,000,000
PRODUCTS-COMPLETED OPERATIONS AGGREGATE LIMIT     $2,000,000
PERSONAL & ADVERTISING INJURY LIMIT               $1,000,000

Id. at 163. No general aggregate limit is listed. The umbrella policy contains a schedule of underlying policies that reiterates these limits and lists the "general aggregate limit" for the CGL policy as "NONE." Id. at 265.

The CGL policy's "Limits of Insurance" section reads in pertinent part as follows:

Id. at 171.

FLM asserts that the CGL policy

Appellant's Br. at 43-44.

We agree with FLM in all respects. We have found no Indiana cases directly on point but are persuaded by FLM's citation to Kitsap County v. Allstate Insurance Co., 136 Wn.2d 567, 964 P.2d 1173 (1998). In that case, residents and the owner of a mobile home park in Washington filed several lawsuits in federal district court against Kitsap County and other defendants based on harm to health and property allegedly caused by emanations from a waste disposal site and landfill. The insurance policies at issue contained separate coverages for personal injury and property damage. In addressing a certified question from the district court regarding policy interpretation, the Washington Supreme Court considered the insurers' argument

Id. at 1180. The court replied,

Id.

We are also unaware of any rule of law that prevents an insurance company from providing overlapping coverage, and Cincinnati's CGL policy does not prohibit it under the facts of this case. Cincinnati asserts that the policy contains "an anti-stacking provision[6] which prevents recovery of multiple limits under different coverages of the same primary policy when the damage arises out of the same occurrence[.]" Appellee's Br. at 25.7 That provision reads in pertinent part as follows:

Appellant's App. at 173.

Cincinnati contends that "`Coverage Form' refers to the different coverages found in the policy, which is titled `Commercial Liability Coverage Form.'" Appellee's Br. at 25 n. 10 (quoting Appellant's App. at 165). We disagree, based on the plain language of the policy. The different coverages are called precisely what they are — "coverages" — and the policy itself is called a "form." Appellant's App. at 164-65. An example of an "other Coverage Form" would be an automobile liability coverage form.8 Because there is no "other Coverage Form" at issue here, the provision does not apply. See, e.g., Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Casey, 701 F.3d 829, 833-34 (8th Cir.2012) (finding "Two or More Coverage Forms" provision inapplicable in single policy with separate liability coverage and underinsured motorist coverage limits). Moreover, we note that the provision applies only to an "occurrence," which relates specifically to property damage coverage, and not to an "offense," which relates specifically to personal injury coverage.

In sum, separate $1 million limits are available for personal injury coverage and property damage coverage under the CGL policy, and the trial court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in FLM's favor on this issue. The amount of coverage over $1.7 million to which FLM may be entitled must be determined in further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

BAKER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.