Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

H.B. Fuller Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.

H.B. Fuller Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

March 2, 2012, Decided; March 2, 2012, Filed

Civil No. 09-2827 (JRT/JJG)

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS MISSING TEXT. THE LEXIS SERVICE WILL PLACE THE TEXT ON-LINE UPON RECEIPT.]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff HB Fuller ("Fuller") seeks a declaration of coverage under [*2]  one of four umbrella insurance policies (the "International Policy") for certain asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Fuller and Defendant International Insurance Company ("TIG") filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the question of when TIG must begin indemnifying Fuller under the International Policy. The Court will grant TIG's motion for partial summary judgment in part, and deny it in part, and grant Fuller's motion in part and deny it in part. Specifically, the Court finds that: (1) the International Policy requires that claims contributing to the liability limits of the relevant underlying primary policy, the National Union Policy ("National Policy"), so as to trigger the International Policy must actually be payable per the National Policy's terms and conditions; and (2) the term "occurrence," construed in light of Minnesota law, refers to a single, extended instance of asbestos manufacture for the purpose of determining Fuller's Self-Insured Retention ("SIR") obligation under the National Policy.

BACKGROUND

Fuller manufactured and sold products that contain asbestos starting in the 1960s. From 1976 until 1985, it purchased a number of "occurrence"-based insurance [*3]  policies from various companies. Fuller purchased both primary and secondary or umbrella policies.1 The National Policy is a primary policy; the International Policy is an umbrella policy.

Fuller has been named in a series of products liability suits alleging injury stemming from exposure to two lines of asbestos-containing materials: [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT] [Product A], and [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT] [Product B]. Fuller manufactured each product line pursuant to specific formulas, regardless of which plant manufactured the products. (Aff. of [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT], ¶ 3, Aug. 1, 2011, Docket No. 149; Aff. [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT], ¶¶ 4-5, Aug. 1, 2011, Docket No. 152.) Five plants manufactured [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT] [Product A]; four plants manufactured [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT] [Product B]. (Aff. of [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT], ¶ 7, Aug. 1, 2011, Docket No. 147.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195835 *; 2012 WL 12894484

H.B. FULLER COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation n/k/a TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor to NORTHBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, and NATIONAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, Third-Party Defendants.

Prior History: H.B. Fuller Co. v. United States Fire Insurace Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77896 (D. Minn., July 18, 2011)

CORE TERMS

occurrence, coverage, exhaustion, insured, Endorsement, triggered, REDACTED, manufacture, per occurrence, conditions, asbestos, underlying policy, insurance policy, provisions, products, parties, applicable limit, bodily injury, limits, summary judgment, policy period, ambiguous, terms, limitation of liability, policy language, umbrella policy, primary policy, asbestos-related, asbestos-containing, umbrella