PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Allocation / Excess Policy Covers Liability for Occurrence Continuing After the Policy Period Ends

Excess Policy Covers Liability for Occurrence Continuing After the Policy Period Ends

January 11, 2013 by Scott C. Shine

The Second Circuit has held that property damage occurring after the term of an excess liability policy may be included in the calculation of whether damages from a single occurrence reach the policy’s attachment point.

In Olin Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 11-4055-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2012), an insured manufacturer of industrial chemicals filed suit against its excess liability insurers, claiming they owed a duty to indemnify it for its costs of remediating an environmental contamination at one of its plant sites.  Pollution from the site occurred continuously from 1957 until 1987, and it caused damage of approximately $102 million.  In earlier decisions involving the same parties (but a different site), the Second Circuit had adopted a pro rata allocation method, which would attribute damages of $3.3 million to each year in which the pollution occurred, or $9.9 million to each 3-year term of the excess policies issued by American Home.  Since each of those policies made the insurer liable for a portion of the damages from a single occurrence that exceeded $30.3 million, American Home asserted that it had no liability, and the District Court awarded summary judgment in its favor.

However, the excess policy at issue in this case followed form to a policy that contained the following provision:

[I]n the event that . . . property damage arising out of an occurrence covered hereunder is continuing at the time of termination of this Policy, [the insurer] will continue to protect the Assured for Liability in respect of such . . . property damage without payment of additional premium.

On appeal, the Second Circuit found that this provision required American Home to provide coverage for all property damage that occurred after the end of the policy term.  In doing so, it rejected the insurer’s assertion that pollution occurring after the policy term constituted “new,” rather than “continuing” property damage.  Thus, the court found that its earlier allocation decisions did not preclude coverage in this case.

Olin was decided just four months after the California Supreme Court adopted “stacking” of liability policies for long-tail environmental claims, in State of California v. Continental Insurance Co., No. S170560, 2012 WL 3206561 (Cal. Aug. 9, 2012).  All in all, 2012 was a tough year for liability insurers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

A Porous Border: Insurers Finding it Hard to Exclude Coverage for Additional Insureds

Next Article »

Be Careful what you Incorporate: Insurer Bound by Insured’s Arbitration Agreement

About Scott C. Shine

Related Articles

  1. Excess is Enough: Courts Decline to Expand Liability of Excess Insurers
  2. Peerless, This is Not: Sixth Circuit Finds No Latent Ambiguity in Consent to Settle Requirement in Excess Policy
  3. For Excess Liability Insurers, Consent-to-Settle Clauses Still Count
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing