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

Heading: The Parties and the Asbestosis Exclusions

Text: 4 Carey Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Celotex organized under the laws of the Province of Quebec, has its principal place of business in Quebec, Canada. Celotex, a privately-owned Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, manufactures and sells building materials. Celotex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Jim Walter Corporation (Jim Walter or JWC). JWC (not a party to this action), through its in-house insurance company, Best Insurors, Inc., its agent, Rollin Burdick Hunter Co., and other brokers, purchased the three policies at issue to cover Jim Walter, Celotex, Carey Canada, and most of Jim Walter's subsidiaries. 5 Appellees Columbia Casualty and National Union are two of the insureds' excess liability insurance carriers. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna) is the primary carrier. Aetna's policies for the relevant period exclude all asbestos-related disease claims. Specifically, the Aetna policy excludes: 6 [A]ll bodily injury which arises in whole or in part, either directly or indirectly, out of asbestos, whether or not the asbestos is airborne as a fiber or particle, contained in a product, carried on clothing or transmitted in any fashion whatsoever. 7 Carey Canada, 708 F.Supp. at 2 n. 2. Aetna is no longer a party to this action. 8 In 1983 and 1986, the insureds brought declaratory judgment actions to determine the scope of coverage of policies they purchased from the defendant insurance carriers. See id. at 2. Appellants sought a declaration that the asbestosis exclusion in each policy is limited to an exclusion for a distinct medical disease known as asbestosis and that other diseases that occur as a result of exposure to asbestos, such as mesothelioma and other forms of cancer, are not excluded from coverage. Id. (emphasis in original). The defendant insurance carriers maintain that the parties intended the asbestosis exclusion to exclude all bodily-injury claims arising out of exposure to asbestos and not to restrict the exclusion to the single disease asbestosis. Id. 9 The liability insurance policies at issue are three policies the insureds purchased from the defendant insurance carriers to cover the three-year period between October 1977 and October 1980. National Union issued two policies to JWC; policy no. 1189777 (10/1/77-10/1/78) (1977 National Union Policy), and policy no. 1226411 (10/1/79-10/1/80) (1979 National Union Policy). Columbia Casualty issued a single policy, no. RDX 416-93-97 (10/1/78-10/1/79) (Columbia Casualty Policy), to JWC. Prior to 1977, none of the policies issued to appellants by the defendant insurance carriers contained asbestos exclusions of any kind. Beginning in October 1977, however, and in the face of thousands of lawsuits, the defendant insurance carriers issued policies with variously worded asbestos-related exclusions. 10 The 1977 National Union Policy exclusion states,  'it is understood and agreed that any bodily injury or property damage claim or claims arising out of all asbestosis operations is excluded from the policy.'  Carey Canada, 708 F.Supp. at 3 (emphasis in original). The 1979 National Union Policy contained no asbestos-related exclusion. Rather, this policy incorporated or followed form to the asbestos-related exclusion of the umbrella policy sold to appellants by another insurance company, United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire). Id. The applicable U.S. Fire exclusion provides,  '[t]his policy shall not apply to any liability imposed upon the insured arising out of ASBESTOSIS.'  Carey Canada, 720 F.Supp. at 1019 (emphasis in original). 11 The Columbia Casualty Policy contains an exclusion which provides that the policy  '[s]hall not apply to liability imposed upon the insured arising out of asbestosis,'  id., adopting the exact wording of the exclusion contained in the U.S. Fire Policy.