Monthly Archives: March 2009

Thanks, Blawg Review #205!

If I was not a serious blogger about insurance coverage issues, I would make a comment here, with a wink to the old The Jeffersons tv show about how I’m “movin’ on up,” to let you all know that I was featured in Blawg Review #205.  But this is a serious blog about serious issues relating to insurance coverage, so I will not.

The review cited my post about the State of California environmental coverage case and the article by my colleague, Steve Goldberg.  You can find Blawg Review #205 hosted over at Declarations & Exclusions, which, if you are not familiar with it, offers “News and Comment on California Insurance Law, the Politics of Insurance, and Other Risky Business.”  (Again, the serious blogger here would not suggest that presumably, the “Risky Business” relates to insurance topics, and not Tom Cruise sliding across a living room, so I will refrain.)

When you have a free moment, surf on over to Blawg Review #205, and check it out.

myspace profile views counter

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.

Steve Goldberg on “Sorting Out a Liability Mess”: An Analysis of State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company

Steve Goldberg My former colleague, Steve Goldberg, recently wrote a column for the Los Angeles Daily Journal regarding the recent State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company insurance coverage decision relating to the Stringfellow Acid Pits, including a discussion of the pollution exclusion.

Victoria Pynchon There is a nice excerpt of the article on Victoria Pynchon’s terrific Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, which begins:

In State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2009 DJDAR 3425 (March 9, 2009), the California Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for a handful of insurance carriers who refused to defend the state against and indemnify it for liabilities arising from an infamous toxic waste site – the Stringfellow Acid Pits. Neither this opinion, nor another in the same matter handed down by the 4th Appellate District in January, finally resolves the state’s claims. Instead, both courts sent two groups of insurance carriers back to the trial court for further proceedings. In both, the insurers lost significant battles but will no doubt continue the fight on yet another day.

Continue reading Steve’s article here.

The take away from this article for risk managers and in house counsel is that coverage may be available for liabilities even after coverage has been denied.  Insurance coverage always is important to policyholders, but in an economic downturn, insurance coverage is essential.

myspace profile views counter

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.

How Can Insulation Contractors Maximize the Value of their Insurance Policies?

hblitigation

Recently, I gave a presentation regarding insurance coverage for the people at HB Litigation Conferences.  The conference was Emerging Trends in Asbestos Litigation.  Along with two co-panelists, I presented on insurance coverage issues for insulation contractors and premises owners who are facing asbestos claims.    The presentation, which you can find here:  Insurance_Coverage_Issues_for_Asbestos_Non-Products, discusses the potential for multiple policy limits of insurance coverage to apply to asbestos claims.

myspace profile views counter

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.

Scott N. Godes on the New York Supreme Court’s Recent Decision Rejecting the Application of the Products Hazard and Aggregate Limits For Asbestos Claims Against Insulation Contractor: Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau

Scott N. Godes [formerly] is counsel in Dickstein Shapiro’s Insurance Coverage Practice.

Discussion of the New York Supreme Court’s decision ruling that unaggregated premises/operations (aka “non-products”) insurance coverage is available to a class of asbestos claimants.

Read the rest of what Lexis has featured as “expert commentary” here, on Lexis.  (Subscription required)

myspace profile views counter

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.

N.Y. Asbestos Claims Not Subject To Aggregate Limits

Scott N. Godes [formerly] is counsel in Dickstein Shapiro’s Insurance Coverage Practice.

Law360, New York (August 10, 2007) — One of the most hotly contested questions in the asbestos insurance coverage area is whether certain asbestos-related bodily injury claims fall outside of the products hazard and completed operations hazard in standard form comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) policies.

Insurers view this as a “bet the company” dispute because third-party claims that fall outside of those hazards—so-called non-products claims—are not subject to aggregate limits in most CGL policies….

Read the rest of the post here, at Law360. (Subscription required)

myspace profile views counter

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.

Eleven Years After Frontier and Porter Hayden, Insurers Still Wrongfully Refuse to Provide Premises-Operations Coverage: An Analysis of the Keasbey Decision

Scott N. Godes [formerly] is counsel in Dickstein Shapiro’s Insurance Coverage Practice.

This article contains a discussion of premises/operations insurance coverage for insulation contractors facing asbestos claims, the multiple limits of coverage available for such claims, and the burden of proof required when litigating such claims between policyholders and insurance companies.

Read the rest of the article here, published in Coverage Journal.

myspace profile views counter

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.

Scott N. Godes on Bombar v. West American Insurance Company

Scott N. Godes [formerly] is counsel in Dickstein Shapiro’s Insurance Coverage Practice.

A discussion of the recent Pennsylvania decision in which the court affirmed that the completed operations hazard does not apply to tort claims regarding allegations of failed duty to warn.

Read the rest of what Lexis has featured as “expert commentary” by clicking here, on Lexis.  (Subscription required)

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.

myspace profile views counter

« Older Entries