INSURANCE LAW: Connecticut Appellate Court addresses allocation of defense and indemnity costs and pollution exclusion in the context of asbestos litigation:

7/5/2017 | Kathryn M. Cunningham
kmcunningham@jacksonokeefe.com

Category:

Kathryn M. Cunningham

INSURANCE LAW: Connecticut Appellate Court addresses allocation of defense and indemnity costs and pollution exclusion in the context of asbestos litigation:

An insured producer of industrial talc for an action against its comprehensive general liability insurers seeking a declaration that the insurers had a duty to defend and indemnify with regard to thousands of claims arising from asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused by exposure to its talc.  Following a trial, the Appellate Court holds that, as a matter of first impression, the so-called continuous trigger theory governs the pro rata allocation of defense and indemnity costs.  The court adopts the continuous trigger theory under which every policy in effect, beginning at the time of the initial asbestos exposure and extending through the latency period and up to the manifestation of asbestos-related disease, is on the risk for defense and liability costs.  The court adopts this theory following a majority of sister jurisdictions, as the rule governing long-tail asbestos claims, as it best accounts for the progressive nature of asbestos-related diseases.  The court further holds that as a matter of first impression, defense and indemnity costs would not be pro-rated to the insured for periods where insurance was unavailable.  The court additionally holds that the standard pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for the asbestos claims set forth in the underlying litigation.  The court states that consistent with the rulings from other jurisdictions, it was at best ambiguous as to whether the terminology was intended and could reasonably have been understood to extend to the inhalation or ingestion of asbestos dust, at least in small quantities in an indoor environment during everyday activities, such as manufacturing, laundering or remodeling.  R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 171 Conn. App. 61 (2017)

If you have a possible claim, you will need to review your options timely. For assistance, call the attorneys at Jackson O’Keefe now at (860) 276-8100.

With offices in Southington and Wethersfield, as well as satellite offices in East Haddam, Bloomfield, Farmington, and Marlborough our lawyers strive to meet the needs of area residents, making getting your legal services easier than ever.  Call us now to speak with us about your case. (860) 278-4040 during business hours or 860.966.7436 any time, or email us any time at info@jacksonokeefe.com

Our Bloomfield Satellite office:  
7 High Hill Road
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Phone: 860.278.4040

Share this:



Latest News

More Articles
best.jpg
Martindale---Hubble.jpg
SUPER-LAWYERS.jpg
BAR-REGISTER.jpg
CLM.jpg
top-attorneys-ct.jpg