Allocation
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. et al.
Year: 2022
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: No. S273179
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • California

United Policyholder’s amicus brief discusses important issues of equitable contribution and allocation between primary and excess insurers, including explaining how one proposed equitable contribution scheme would impact policyholder rights and the future availability of funds in the context of asbestos-related liabilities.
Aerojet-General Corporation vs. Transport Indemnity Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S054501
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • California

Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation
Boston Gas vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et. al.
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
Case Number: 07-1452
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • Massachusetts

Coverage for continuous injury when multiple policies cover the loss. The Court should adopt the position that joint and several liability should be imposed against insurance companies for damages arising from an ongoing injury. The only way the policyholder can enjoy the security it purchased…
Norfolk Southern et al v. California Union Insurance Co.
Year: 2001
Court: Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
Case Number: 2002-CA-371
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Joint and Several Liability
State:
  • Louisiana

The Court should affirm its decision to allow joint and several liability where the loss may be covered by several insurance policies and not allow the insurer’s pro-rata allocation scheme which puts the burden on insureds.
Plastics Engineering Company vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Case Number: Appeal No. 2008AP333
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Occurrence
State:
  • Wisconsin

Because the incident giving rise to liability was each individual plaintiff’s continuous or repeated exposure to asbestos and not the business decision to manufacture asbestos or a failure to protect against their alleged hazards, the only plausible way to interpret “occurrence” is that it refers…
Security Insurance Co of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company
Year: 2001
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Case Number: AC 21960
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Continuing Injury
State:
  • Connecticut

Drafting history sanctions the policyholder’s right to designate which general liability insurance policies are liable to respond fully to a continuing injury. This is inconsistent with any “pro-rata” allocation among insurers.
Stonewall Insurance Company vs. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation
Year: 1994
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 93-7314 (L)
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Estoppel
State:
  • New York
Thomson, Inc. et al. v. XL Insurance, Inc. et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 49A05-1109-PL-470
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Indiana

On appeal from a decision in error by the Indiana Court of Appeal, UP argued in its brief that the presumptive rule in determining the scope of coverage under a Commercial General Liability Policy (“CGL”) should be “all-sums” or joint and several liability. For “long-tail”…
Radiator Specialty Company v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
Year: 2016
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Case Number: 16-638
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Duty to Defend
  • Indemnify
State:
  • North Carolina

UP supports the position that the terms of the standard commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy compels “all sums” allocation. UP wrote separately from the parties of the case to bring to the Court’s attention the extensive drafting history of the insurance industry, which confirms that…
In the matter of Viking Pump and Warren Pump, insurance appeals
Year: 2016
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: CTQ-2015-0003
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Asbestos
  • long-tail liabilities
State:
  • New York

Joined by co-amici the Asbestos PI Trust, ASARCO Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Duro Dyne Corporation, John Crane Inc. and Alfa Laval Inc, UP urged the New York Court of Appeals to hold that comprehensive general liability insurance policies containing non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions must…
R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
Year: 2015
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Case Number: AC36749
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • defense and indemnity costs
State:
  • Connecticut

Where a business purchases insurance to cover specific risks (here asbestos) an insurer may not “pro-rate” its liability based on an exclusion, when additional, different insurance is not available, yet the insurance called upon to respond to a claim was purchased to cover that specific…
Continental Ins. Co. et al v. Honeywell International, Inc
Year: 2017
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Case Number: A-1071-13T1, A-1100-13Tl
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Unavailability of Insurance
State:
  • New Jersey

Under the seminal case of Owens-Illinois v. United Ins. Co., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that under the Keane rule, a policyholder’s entire liability can be allocated to a single triggered policy. The policyholder can only assume the portion of the risk for which…
Keyspan East Gast Corporation v. Munich Re America, Inc.
Year: 2018
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: APL-2016-00236
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Unavailability of Insurance
State:
  • New York

In the case of indivisible long-tail injury claims that have a latent manifest, the “all sums” approach protects the policyholder from litigating with every insurer that may have liability. In contrast, the “pro rata” approach is a pro-insurer approach that causes more litigation and potentially…
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (Montrose IX)
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B272387/S244737
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Excess Insurance
State:
  • California

UP submitted letters requesting depublication of the appellate decision and supporting review by the California Supreme Court. In it’s letters UP argued that the Montrose IX Court created new and bad law by (a) adopting a coverage-minimizing reading of the term “underlying insurance,” in contravention…
National Indemnity Co. v. State of Montana
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Montana
Case Number: 19-0533
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • Montana

In its brief, UP argues that the District Court correctly held that NIC owes the State a complete defense and indemnity for long-tail asbestos claims under the “all sums” language in its insurance policy. That holding is consistent not only with the insurance policy language;…