We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 221

Georgia high court affirms that CGL policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for injury allegedly caused by exposure to carbon monoxide

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2008

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed on September 22, 2008, that a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for injuries resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide, on the grounds that carbon monoxide is a pollutant as defined in the insurance policy

N.J. appeals court says D&O policy’s pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for securities fraud suit alleging misrepresentation concerning asbestos claims

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an unpublished decision, has ruled that the pollution exclusion in a directors and officers insurance policy does not bar coverage for defense costs and damages arising from an underlying suit alleging securities misrepresentations regarding contingent liabilities for pollution claims

New Hampshire Supreme Court endorses pro rata allocation among triggered general liability policies by years and limits

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 5 2007

On certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has decided that New Hampshire will allocate liability for long-tail environmental claims pro rata by years and limits among triggered policies

New Hampshire Supreme Court adopts pro rata allocation methodology in environmental coverage case

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 11 2007

In a matter of first impression, the New Hampshire Supreme Court recently held that a pro rata allocation method, as opposed to a joint and several approach, should be applied in an environmental coverage action for purposes of allocating long-term pollution damage among multiple triggered insurance policies

Policyholders’ ability to obtain insurance coverage for cleanups and other liabilities relating to accidental pollution in Pennsylvania is greatly enhanced

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2008

On March 10, 2008, in a case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Simon Wrecking Company, Inc., et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, et al., the Honorable Anita B. Brody issued a decision describing the proof needed by a policyholder with pollution-related liabilities to prevent its insurance company from denying responsibility based on the so-called “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion

US District Court for the Southern District of New York finds term “contaminant” contained in definition of pollution in first party property insurance ambiguous precluding summary judgment in case involving WTC particulates

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2008

In Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Insurance Co., No 04 CV 470 (BSJ) (GWG), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14967 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2008), the Southern District of New York denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the application of a pollution exclusion in a first party property policy to the infiltration of particulates from the WTC collapse in a nearby insured building

Federal judge in Florida rules underground storage tank policy cannot be rescinded

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2008

A federal district court judge in Florida recently ruled that an insurer cannot retroactively rescind a liability policy insuring underground storage tanks (“USTs”) for an alleged material misrepresentation in the policy application

First Circuit Federal Appeals Court certifies important allocation questions to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2008

The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals recently certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court the following critical questions regarding allocation of loss to multiple insurers for long-term environmental contamination

Alaska Supreme Court enforces pollution exclusion

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 3 2008

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in Whittier Properties, Inc. v. Alaska National Insurance Co., No. 6273 (Alaska June 13, 2008) that coverage is barred by an “absolute” pollution exclusion for gasoline leaks from an underground storage tank, holding that the exclusion is unambiguous and that the policyholder’s contrary interpretation was unreasonable

New Jersey appellate court holds D&O policy pollution exclusion inapplicable

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2008

A New Jersey intermediate court of appeals has held that the pollution exclusion in a D&O insurance policy did not bar coverage for a securities fraud action alleging that the insured corporation had misrepresented its contingent liabilities for asbestos-related claims retained by a spun-off subsidiary