Ambiguity strikes again. While the heavily litigated pollution exclusion is well-known in the insurance world, its progeny—the indoor air exclusion—only recently has started making its way around the block. Insurers should be aware of the trend in cases holding that indoor air quality exclusions are ambiguous. Such holdings are resulting in courts applying a strict and narrow construction. For example, in Siloam Springs Hotel v. Century Sur. Co., No. 17-6208 (10th Cir. ... Keep Reading »
Environmental
New York’s Highest Court Rejects ‘Unavailability of Insurance Exception’ Under ‘Pro Rata Time on the Risk Allocation’
On March 27, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that under a “pro rata time on the risk allocation,” insurers are not liable for years outside their policy periods when there was no insurance available to the insured in the marketplace. See KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Re. Am., Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 02116 (N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018). The decision is a significant victory for insurers faced with long-tail environmental claims, and may also lend support to ... Keep Reading »
In Indiana, an Absolute Pollution Exclusion May Exclude Absolutely Nothing
A recent article in the Sports section of The Miami Herald read "Shooting coach helps Winslow." Perhaps, but it probably didn't help the coach much. The admonition to "eat every carrot and pea on your plate" undoubtedly elicits laughs from the children to whom it is directed. The point is, some things are unambiguously ambiguous. Others are not. Consider these basic principles of Indiana contract interpretation: Limitations on coverage in insurance policies must ... Keep Reading »
For Excess Liability Insurers, Consent-to-Settle Clauses Still Count
When a liability insurer defends its insured under a reservation, recent decisions limit the insurer’s right to enforce a policy’s consent-to-settle clause. But can the reservation affect the rights of an excess carrier? And does it matter if the carrier declines to participate in an upcoming mediation? Last month, in The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. The Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., G050689 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2016), a California appellate court (applying Missouri ... Keep Reading »
Down in the Dumps: Court Refuses to Apply Pollution Exclusion in Landfill Seepage Case
Claims involving potential coverage for pollution liability pose unique challenges for insurers. In many cases, the polluting activity occurred decades ago and over a large span of time, with only a fraction of the activity occurring during the policy period. As a result, an issue in pollution liability cases is whether an insurer is obligated to indemnify an insured for the entire amount of damages resulting from pollution, or whether an insurer's obligation may be ... Keep Reading »
“Voluntary” ≠ “Obligatory”: Good Deeds Do Not Trigger Coverage
Liability policies typically provide coverage for amounts the insured "become[s] legally obligated to pay"—but they leave open the question of how that obligation should be determined. Judgments and settlements clearly create "legal obligations." Sometimes, a statute can, too: several courts require insurers to pay for remediation efforts mandated by environmental laws, even if government authorities have not yet ordered any action at the polluted site. But the ... Keep Reading »
McCarran-Ferguson vs. the FAA: Judge Posner Declares TKO in Favor of Arbitration
In a bout before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, two heavyweight federal statutes squared off, with coverage for hundreds of long-tail, asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits on the line. In one corner: the Federal Arbitration Act, enacted by Congress to overcome federal courts’ erstwhile reluctance to enforce arbitration agreements. In the other corner: the McCarran-Ferguson Act, created to curb those courts’ over-reach into insurance regulation ... Keep Reading »
My Advice? Pay Me!
Shopping for insurance can raise hard questions: How much coverage do I need? What types of risk should be covered? What must I do to get the maximum benefits allowed? Policyholders who get the wrong answers often end up in litigation—claiming their homes were underinsured, their agents failed to obtain the coverage they requested, or they were tricked out of reimbursement for full replacement cost. In many contexts, courts have shown a good deal of indulgence for ... Keep Reading »
If the Suit Fits: A Washington Court Clarifies Triggers for the Duty to Defend
Like many other federal and state environmental laws, Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) exposes property owners to strict liability, regardless of fault or intent, for certain types of environmental contamination. Twenty years ago, in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 874 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1994), the Supreme Court of Washington held that a property owner’s efforts to remediate polluted sites triggers a liability insurer’s duty to indemnify the ... Keep Reading »
Too Much of a Good Thing: Household Product Triggers Pollution Exclusion, Because “Quantity Matters”
Pollution exclusion clauses began appearing in commercial general liability policies when federal laws began making businesses liable for the cost of massive environmental clean-ups—like the remediation of “Volatile Organic Compounds” that was recently at issue in Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., No. 11-16272 (9th Cir. March 15, 2013). A recent Colorado case presented the issue of when the grease that goes into your bacon double cheeseburger becomes a ... Keep Reading »