Opinion ID: 398579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: liberty's 1967-68 policy

Text: 55 The district court included Liberty's 1967-68 policy among the policies that potentially cover Keene's liability for asbestos-related injury. 43 Liberty argues that the policy does not cover Keene's liability for injuries caused by the products of its former subsidiary Baldwin-Ehret-Hill. In opposition to Keene's motion for summary judgment, Liberty submitted affidavits to support its position. Liberty also argues that if the policies did cover Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, that facet of their coverage was conveyed to Gale Corporation when Keene sold Baldwin-Ehret-Hill to Gale. 44 Keene responds by arguing that Endorsement No. 1 of the policy provides for coverage of any subsidiary in which Keene owned more than a fifty-percent interest. 45 In February 1968, Keene acquired more than fifty percent of Baldwin-Ehret-Hill's stock. Therefore, Keene argues, Baldwin-Ehret-Hill was covered by Liberty's policy. 56 We hold that there was before the district court a genuine issue of material fact on this point. Therefore, the district court erred in including the issue in its summary judgment order.