Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-insurance?article_sidebar=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:27:39+00:00

Document:
NEW YORK — An asbestos personal injury settlement trust can pursue the full limits of excess policies issued by an insolvent insurer, the First Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed April 18 because the coverage dispute is governed by the “all sums” method of allocation (In re liquidation of Midland Insurance Co.; The ASARCO Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, No. 41294/86, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2952).
MIAMI — The Third District Florida Court of Appeal on April 17 reversed a trial court’s ruling that a policy’s total pollution exclusion bars coverage for underlying claims alleged against a fire protection systems contractor because the trial court improperly relied on extrinsic evidence in granting the insurer’s motion (Advanced Systems Inc. v. Gotham Insurance Co., No. 3D18-1744, Fla. App., 3rd Dist., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 5933).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 15 issued amended summary orders in two separate cases filed by homeowners who seek coverage for deteriorating and cracking basement walls in Connecticut homes, reiterating that the policies’ collapse provision does not provide coverage for the defective foundation walls because there was no sudden and accidental collapse as required by the policies (Glenn R. Carlson, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3501, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948; Alan D. Lees, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 18-007, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10949).
NEW YORK — A New York justice on April 1 granted an insured’s motion to dismiss an insurer’s declaratory judgment suit arising out of coverage for underlying asbestos claims after determining that the insurer failed to provide any evidence that it is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs paid on behalf of the insured based on the insured’s settlement with a liquidator handling the insolvency of another insurer (Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply Co. Inc., No. 650059/2018, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1694).
SEATTLE — A trial judge erred in concluding that the only reasonable interpretation of “decay” under an insurance policy is one that indicates some kind of decomposition of the material, a Washington appeals panel held April 8, reversing the entry of summary judgment to an insurer in a coverage dispute following a partial collapse of an insured’s building (Feenix Parkside LLC v. Berkley North Pacific, et al., No. 77303-8-I, Wash. App., Div. 1, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 823).
NEW YORK — A New York justice on April 1 granted a motion to amend a complaint and the case caption in an asbestos coverage dispute after determining that the insurers will not be prejudiced if the complaint and caption are amended to reflect that one of the named defendants was acquired by another company (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. 653090/2013, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.; 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1543).
AUGUSTA, Ga. — A Georgia federal judge on March 27 determined that an insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse because there is an issue of fact as to whether nitrogen was intended to be considered as an irritant or contaminant under the policies’ pollution exclusion (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Xytex Tissue Services LLC et al., No. 17-140, S.D. Ga., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51668).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 affirmed a lower federal court’s dismissal of an insurer’s breach of warranty and strict liability subrogation lawsuit against a raw chicken supplier, finding that the allegations fail to sufficiently assert that raw contaminated chicken that the supplier sold to the insured was “defective” under Maine law (Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Mountaire Farms Inc., No. 18-1818, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 2 affirmed three district court rulings in favor of a homeowners insurer in three separate cases seeking coverage for deteriorating and cracking basement walls in Connecticut homes after determining that the policies’ collapse provision does not provide coverage for the defective foundation walls because there was no sudden and accidental collapse as required by the policies (William A. Valls et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3495, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9596; Glenn R. Carlson, et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3501, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9586; Alan D. Lees et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 18-007, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585).
HOUSTON — No coverage is afforded to insureds for an underlying criminal proceeding arising out of environmental contamination caused by the insureds’ operation of a landfill because the criminal indictment does not include a demand for any remedy that would be covered under the pollution liability policy, a Texas federal judge said March 28 (Waste Management Inc., et al. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 16-3676, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53525).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.