- Volume 32, Issue #28
- Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Noxious Fumes, Odors, Judge Says
COLUMBUS, Ga. - An insurer has no duty to defend its insured against an underlying suit alleging damages as a result of odors emanating from an insured's holding pond because the policy's pollution exclusion clearly bars coverage for the underlying suit, a Georgia federal judge said May 16 (Recyc Systems Southeast LLC v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-225, M.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82248).
- Insurer Says Policy Should Be Reformed To Include Intended Pollution Exclusion
ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court's ruling in an environmental contamination dispute because the insurer should be permitted to reform the policy as the evidence supports the insurer's contention that the parties intended the policy to include a pollution exclusion, the insurer argues in an April 8 reply brief (ACE American Insurance Co. v. Exide Technologies Inc., et al., No. 17-15392, 11th Cir.).
- New York Panel Reinstates Claims Against Insurer, Oil Remediation Company
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - The Second Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division on May 16 reinstated claims of gross negligence and punitive damages against an insurer and a remediation company after determining that the insureds sufficiently stated facts to support the claims (Richard Bennett, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., et al., Nos. 10385/13, 385/14, 602582/14, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 2nd Dept., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3482).
- Policies Must Be Construed As Primary Policies In Asbestos Exposure Coverage Suit
ELGIN, Ill. - The First District Illinois Appellate Court on May 15 affirmed a trial court's finding that insurance policies issued between 1977 and 1985 to an insured who is seeking coverage for an asbestos exposure claim are primary policies with self-insured retentions and cannot be considered excess policies as the insurer contended (Lamorak Insurance Co. v. Kone Inc., No. 1-16-3398, Ill. App., 1st Dist., 2nd Div., 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 279).
- Reinsurers Seek To Dismiss Breach Of Contract Case Over Asbestos Claims
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. - Two reinsurers on May 4 moved to dismiss a breach of contract lawsuit arising out of the settlement of asbestos claims because a Connecticut federal court lacks personal jurisdiction as the contracts were formed and performed outside of the state (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00088, D. Conn.).
- 2 Kaiser Gypsum Insurers See No Reason For Chapter 11 Case To Continue
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Two insurers of Chapter 11 debtor Kaiser Gypsum Co. have had enough, filing their second motion May 7 in North Carolina federal bankruptcy court to dismiss the case, accusing the company and its primary insurer of using the bankruptcy forum to better their own interests to the detriment of asbestos disease sufferers (In re Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 16-31602, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
- Panel Affirms Judgment In Favor Of Insurer In Water Damage Dispute
AMARILLO, Texas - The Seventh District Texas Court of Appeals on May 14 affirmed a trial court's ruling in favor of an insurer after determining that the trial court did not err in concluding that the insurer did not breach its contract or act in bad faith in its handling of the insured's claim for water damage (Mahmoud Abdalla v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 07-17-00020, Texas App., 7th Dist., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 3358).
- N.Y. State Justice Dismisses Insureds' Suit Seeking Coverage For Garage Collapse
MINEOLA, N.Y. - A New York state justice on May 16 dismissed a suit filed by insureds in a dispute over coverage for the collapse of their garage after determining that the insureds failed to prove that the insurer breached its contract, acted in bad faith or committed fraud in its handling of the claim (John A. Petrilli, et al. v. Adirondack Insurance Exchange, et. al., No. 600128/18, N.Y. Sup., Nassau Co.).