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.
Supreme Court of Virginia justices focused on the role of intent in determining whether an "accident" takes place under commercial general liability (CGL) policies and whether application of the pollution exclusion properly was before them during oral argument held April 19, 2011 in The AES Corporation v. Steadfast Insurance Company (AES), the first coverage suit addressing claims for losses allegedly caused by contributions to global climate change
The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that an underlying lawsuit filed against an energy company policyholder alleging losses caused by the policyholder's contributions to global climate change are not potentially covered by a CGL policy, precluding an insurer's duty to defend, because the suit failed to allege an "occurrence."
The Supreme Court of Virginia now has before it the first appeal of a coverage suit involving the question whether targets of global warming suits can look to their insurers for defense and indemnity of claims seeking relied because of harms allegedly caused by climate change
