Opinion ID: 566300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of the District Court's Findings of Fact

Text: 23 The District Court's findings of fact, including the finding that the parties intended to exclude all asbestos-related disease claims, may be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous. Salve Regina College v. Russell, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1222, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991) (citation omitted); Robinson v. American Airlines, Inc., 908 F.2d 1020, 1022 (D.C.Cir.1990). Alternately stated, we will not reverse  '[i]f the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,'  or unless, after reviewing the entire record, we are  'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'  Cuddy v. Carmen, 762 F.2d 119, 124 (D.C.Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S.Ct. 597, 88 L.Ed.2d 576 (1985). Significantly, the District Court found that all parties knew and understood that the asbestosis exclusions applied to all asbestos-related disease claims. The court supported this finding with subsidiary findings, reciting substantial and probative evidence, including, inter alia: 24 . Jim Walter and Rollin Burdick Hunter Co. used the terms asbestosis and asbestos claims interchangeably. Carey Canada, 720 F.Supp. at 1022, no. 18. 25 . Jim Walter used the term asbestosis to mean all asbestos-related disease claims when it provided loss data to insurance carriers. Id., no. 19. 26 . Appellants treated the Aetna exclusion, which excluded all asbestos-related claims, as equivalent to an asbestosis exclusion. Id. at 1022-23, no. 20. 27 . Appellants did not notify the insurance carriers of any of the thousands of asbestos-related disease claims over a five and one-half year period, until the week before they filed this lawsuit. Id. at 1023, nos. 21, 22. 28 . Jim Walter and appellants acknowledged that the policies at issue do not cover any asbestos-related disease claims in Annual Reports to shareholders and in sworn interrogatory answers submitted in other insurance coverage litigation. Id., nos. 23, 24. 29 Based on this and other evidence, we are not  'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'  Cuddy, 762 F.2d at 124. Hence, we cannot say the District Court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. We therefore do not disturb these factual findings. 30