August 2, 2011
On August 10, 2011, from 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm (Eastern), my friends at HB Litigation Conferencesare hosting a CLE teleconference: “Asbestos Insurance Litigation Audiocast.” It is going to be a great event. I’m going to be speaking at 1:00 pm, presenting with Jack Gerstein on a panel titled, “Revisiting Policy Limits.” You can review the entire agenda by clicking here (PDF). You’ll get either 3 or 3.5 CLE credits, depending on your jurisdiction.
My presentation will include a discussion about the following points, in the context of insurance coverage for asbestos claims:
• The impact of products hazard versus premises/operations (non-products) claims
• The impact of the number of occurrences
• The impact of additional insureds
• Issues relating to annualized limits
• Types of actions – from Wellington arbitrations to claims alleging misrepresentation
To register, you can download the Registration Form (PDF) and mail/fax/email it to HB Litigation Conferences, complete the online form, or e-mail or call Brownie Bokelman at 484-324-2755 x 212 to register.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2011.
Note: as a speaker at the conference, I will not be charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.
2 Comments | 
Additional Insured, Asbestos, Duty to defend, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Tagged: Additional Insured, Asbestos, Comprehensive General Liability, Duty to defend, Non-Products, Number of occurrences, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | 
Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
July 1, 2010
We all know what happens in summer time – lounging by the pool, re-runs on TV, and scrambling for CLE, right? Of course, your thirst for knowledge about the latest information in the world of insurance coverage and asbestos claims remains unquenched. Do I have the solution for you! Sign up for the Asbestos Insurance Litigation Audiocast with Live Q&A. It will run on July 15, 2010 from 1:00 pm to 4:30 pm Eastern. You’ll be able to get Continuing Legal Education credit right from your desk! And, like they say on tv, “if you haven’t seen it [live when we presented this information in Philadelphia], it’s new to you!” Plus, unlike tv shows being run for an encore round, this CLE will have live Q&A. Live! You can ask questions, and you won’t have to go through voicemail jail or hear that your question is important to us, so please keep holding.* Click here for a link to the full agenda.
My presentation includes a fascinating discussion about premises/operations insurance coverage, also known as “non-products” amongst us cool insurance practitioners.
To register, download the Registration Form and mail/fax/email it to my friends at HB, complete the online form, or call Brownie Bokelman at 484-324-2755 x 212 to register.
* Actually, I can’t guarantee that you won’t hear that.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2010.
Note: as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.
1 Comment | Asbestos, Discovery, Duty to defend, Number of occurrences, Occurrence, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Tagged: aggregate limits, Asbestos, CGL, Commercial General Liability, Comprehensive General Liability, Non-Products, Number of occurrences, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
June 20, 2010
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010. from 2:00 – 3:40 pm (Eastern). I’m going to be part of a panel discussing “The Hot Buttons in Asbestos Insurance Litigation.”
We’re going to cover:
The Keasbey ruling: contribution and trigger
Allocation–pro rata or all sums: jurisdictions still at play, choice of law and related
Aggregate limits and “non-products” disputes
Insurance and bankruptcy: the current landscape
This discussion qualifies for between 1.5 to 2.0 continuing legal education (CLE) credits, depending on state requirements. View the CLE credit details.
Want to sign up? Purchase the teleconference Audio Package (includes MP3 audio recording files and handbook on CD). To order or learn more, click here, call 484-324-2755, or email allison.emery@litigationconferences.com.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2010.
Leave a Comment » | Allocation, Asbestos, Bankruptcy, Defense Costs, Duty to defend, Excess Insurance, Number of occurrences, Occurrence | Tagged: Allocation, Asbestos, CGL, Comprehensive General Liability, Duty to defend, Non-Products, Number of occurrences, Occurrence, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
April 15, 2010
On April 21, 2010, from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm (Eastern), my friends at HB Litigation Conferences are hosting a live CLE : “Asbestos Insurance Conference.” It is going to be a great event. I’m going to be speaking at 11:30 am, presenting on a panel titled, “Revisiting Policy Limits.” You can review the entire agenda by clicking here (PDF). To find information on CLE credits, click here.
My presentation will include a discussion about the following points, in the context of insurance coverage for asbestos claims:
• The impact of products hazard versus premises/operations (non-products) claims
• The impact of the number of occurrences
• The impact of additional insureds
• Issues relating to annualized limits
• Types of actions – from Wellington arbitrations to claims alleging misrepresentation
To register, you can download the Registration Form (PDF) and mail/fax/email it to HB Litigation Conferences, complete the online form, or e-mail or call Brownie Bokelman at 484-324-2755 x 212 to register.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2010.
Note: as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.
Leave a Comment » | Additional Insured, Asbestos, Duty to defend, Number of occurrences, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Tagged: Asbestos, CGL, Comprehensive General Liability, Duty to defend, Non-Products, Number of occurrences, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
March 10, 2010
At the 2010 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, which the American Bar Association Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee hosted in Tucson, Arizona on March 4-6, 2010, I filled in for my colleague, Jim Murray, for the plenary session”Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: Perspectives on Litigation and Negotiation of High-Damage Claims in 2010 and Beyond.” I was joined by William B. Hedrick of Marsh USA Inc., Laura McKay of Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP, Gordon McKay of Arcina Risk Group, and Jeffrey M. Posner of JM Posner, Inc.
We had a great discussion about the practical issues facing policyholders and insurance companies when claims reach high level excess policies. Our topics ranged from the duty to defend, changes in London market insurance in the last few decades, and who handles and pays for claims handling when in high levels of coverage.
The Lexis Insurance Law Center has posted a brief recap of the panel and the supporting materials, in a blog post entitled “Issues Confronting Insureds and Excess Insurers in Large-Scale, Long-Tail Claims.” You can see the post by clicking here.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2010.
Leave a Comment » | Allocation, Asbestos, Defense Costs, Excess Insurance | Tagged: Allocation, Asbestos, Defense Costs, Duty to defend, Excess Insurance | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
February 19, 2010
On March 30, 2010, from 2:00 – 3:40 pm (Eastern), I will be presenting at a CLE teleconference: “The Hot Buttons in Asbestos Insurance Litigation,” hosted by HB Litigation Conferences. My co-presenters will be Barry Buchman of Gilbert LLP andAndrew Frankel of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
It should be a great CLE, as the three panelists have a good deal of experience in litigating coverage for asbestos claims, both in coverage litigation in state and federal courts, as well as in the context of asbestos-related bankruptcies, including adversary actions.
Here’s the agenda:
• Choice of law: what rules govern your claims and policies
• Update on current coverage litigation cases that are impacting the litigation
• The contribution issue in light of Keasbey
• Allocation issues–the ol’ debate–pro rata or all sums: the jurisdictions still at play and why
• Multiple party, multiple policy claims on the rise: why and what kinds of cases are we seeing?
• Insurance and bankruptcy: premises/operations claims and standing in a 524(g) plan?
• The big elephant in the room–MMSEA: what are the insurers and self-insured responsibilities with reporting?
To register, you can download the Registration Form and mail/fax/email it to HB Litigation Conferences, complete the online form, or e-mail or call Brownie Bokelman at 484-324-2755 x 212 to register.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2010.
Note: as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.
Leave a Comment » | Allocation, Asbestos, Bankruptcy, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Tagged: Allocation, Asbestos, Bankruptcy, Choice of law, Non-Products, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
December 10, 2009
Insurance Law360 just published a piece that I wrote explaining why reinsurance information should be discoverable in the context of insurance coverage disputes between insurance companies and their policyholders. Here’s the opening paragraph:
Like that adage from political campaigns — if you repeat something often enough, it will be accepted as true — insurers in insurance coverage disputes with their policyholders assert time and time again that reinsurance documents are irrelevant to how their policy language should be interpreted and how the policyholders’ claims should be covered.
But reinsurance information is not irrelevant, of course. In fact, it’s just the opposite in the context of coverage disputes. Why, then, do insurance companies argue so vociferously that reinsurance is not discoverable?
Insurance companies fight to keep reinsurance documents from seeing the light of day in coverage disputes with their policyholders because reinsurance documents contain relevant, and likely unguarded, discussions of the appropriate insurance coverage for the claims, as illustrated by insurers’ and reinsurers’ publicly available briefs, pleadings and exhibits to court filings.
I give several reasons why reinsurance is discoverable and why it’s relevant. For example, in one of the sections, I explain that “reinsurance documents are relevant because they discuss the policyholder’s claims, how those claims fit within the disputed insurance policies, and notice of the claims.” And what could be more relevant to a coverage dispute than that?
Now that I’ve whet your appetite on the subject, click on over to Insurance Law360 to see the article. Or, check out the reprint here, hosted on Dickstein Shapiro LLP’s website.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
1 Comment | Asbestos, Discovery, Reinsurance | Tagged: Asbestos, CGL, Commercial General Liability, Comprehensive General Liability, Discovery, Reinsurance | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
September 29, 2009
The fine folks at LexisNexis have created an online Continuing Legal Education center in the Insurance Law Center. They’ve created a CLE out of the presentation that I gave for HB Litigation Conferences regarding insurance coverage for asbestos premises/operations claims (often, claims against premises owners or insulation contractors). You can find the CLE, titled Emerging Trends in Asbestos Litigation: Insurance Coverage Issues for Asbestos Non-Products, by clicking here.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
Note: as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.
Leave a Comment » | Asbestos, Number of occurrences, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage, Reserves | Tagged: Asbestos, CGL, Comprehensive General Liability, Non-Products, Premises/operations (non-products) coverage, Reserves | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
June 14, 2009
Kirk Hartley, one of the prolific authors of GlobalTort, just posted “Commentary On The Definition of Occurrence in Insurance Policies – Another Reason GCs for Insureds Get Grey Hair Managing Legacy Claims,” in which he commented on my post, “Is Uncertainty Over the Meaning of “Occurrence” Susceptible to a Drafting Solution?”
Kirk says that it’s “[a]n interesting post,” the original and complete version of which is found over at the Adams Drafting blog, because Ken Adams, Adam Scales, and I address an issue that Kirk says will cause “[b]illions and soon trillions of dollars [to] change hands based on the meaning given or found by court’s deciding insurance coverage cases for underlying toxic tort cases.”
Kirk was kind enough to conclude that “[t]he following words from Scott are key:”
“Although the term was designed to be a clarification of coverage, it comes as no surprise to someone who represents policyholders when claims have been denied that insurance companies would have courts believe that instead, “occurrence” was designed to support coverage denials or limitations. Insurance companies also are happy to argue conflicting interpretations of “occurrence,” depending on which interpretation will mean less coverage for the policyholder in the dispute at issue.”
Kirk, thanks very much for commenting on the post! And for those of you with an interest in mass tort litigation questions, both in the national and international arenas, be sure to visit
GlobalTort and add its feed to your news reader, as I’ve done.
Disclaimer:
This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
2 Comments | Asbestos, Contract drafting, Occurrence | Tagged: Asbestos, CGL, Comprehensive General Liability, Contract drafting, Number of occurrences, Occurrence | Permalink
Posted by Scott Godes
