Addressing apportionment issues left unresolved by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. Admiral Insurance Company, 10 Cal.4th 645 (1995), California’s intermediate appeals court has ruled that an insured that manufactured asbestos-containing products must first exhaust the limits of all of its primary insurance before it may claim benefits under its excess coverage. 

EAPD is sponsoring today’s ARC Congress in London. EAPD partner, Mark Everiss, who is a Director of ARC, has just chaired an interesting discussion on UK Asbestos/EL Trigger Issues/ ELTO by a prestigious panel of experts – EAPD partner Richard Hopley, Professor Duncan Geddes of Royal Brompton Hospital, Ian Willett of MMI, Colin Wynter QC of Devereux Chambers and Helen Hatchek of RSA. 

Defendant, Clearwater Insurance Company, f/k/a Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation (“Clearwater”), filed suit against Seaton Insurance Company and Stonewall Insurance Company (“Plaintiffs”) in Connecticut Superior Court, arguing that there was no coverage under certain reinsurance agreements for Plaintiffs’ asbestos claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently commenced a declaratory judgment action in Rhode Island federal court concerning the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the same reinsurance agreements, as well as eleven other contracts. 

In a recent decision of the New York Supreme Court, United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Re-insurance Co., Index No. 604517/02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 20, 2010), the court granted summary judgment to a ceding company against the defendant reinsurers on causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the cedent’s $987.4 million payment to settle certain asbestos injury claims. 

In Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 20235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 14, 2010), an insured (“Corning”) moved to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information from its insurers, arguing that this information was relevant, material and necessary to its coverage claim.  Specifically, Corning alleged that the reinsurance information sought could be relevant to the insurers’ liability for the asbestos claims at issue (including whether the insurers took inconsistent coverage positions with their reinsurers) and to rebut the insurers’ claims of late notice. 

In July 2009 in New Castle County in the State of Delaware, three separate plaintiffs filed civil suits against E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. (“DuPont”) alleging that their work at a DuPont textile plant in Mercedes, Argentina from 1961 to 2002 caused them to be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers. 

Pacific Employers Insurance Company (“PEIC”) entered into a facultative reinsurance certificate with Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, f/k/a Constitution Reinsurance Corporation (“Global”), which reinsured an umbrella commercial liability insurance policy issued by PEIC to Buffalo Forge Company.