Does Buss Stop Here? California’s Insurer Right to Recoup Rejected by Other State Courts

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.0.74″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]

Written by David O’Neill, JD

Director of Investigations, PolicyFind

 

The California Supreme Court recognized an insurer’s right to recoup defense costs for claims proven to be non-covered in its 1997 holding in Buss v. Superior Court.1  Finding precedent in state law for the rule that an insurer’s duty to defend in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy is indeed broader than its duty to indemnify, the Supreme Court singled out an issue before it as one of first impression. The issue to be determined was whether the insurer’s costs in exercising its duty to defend could be passed to the policyholder should claims defended later be determined to include those for which coverage did not apply.

Basing its decision on contractual principles, the Buss court opined that because the insurer had defended potentially uncovered claims, the policyholder had received a benefit for which it had not bargained.  It found that the insurer’s right to recoup these defense dollars was implied in law even if not expressly stated in the insurance contract.   Continue reading “Does Buss Stop Here? California’s Insurer Right to Recoup Rejected by Other State Courts”

LIBERTY MUTUAL SHEDS ENVIRONMENTAL, ASBESTOS AND WORKERS COMP CLAIMS IN RETROACTIVE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

Written by David A. O’Neill, JD, Director of Investigations, PolicyFind

 

Liberty Mutual, the third largest property/casualty insurer in the United States has announced that it has entered into a retroactive reinsurance agreement with National Indemnity Company (“NICO”), a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary.  Under what is known in the industry as an aggregate adverse cover agreement, Liberty Mutual will transfer $3.2 billion of its existing environmental, asbestos and workers compensation liabilities to NICO in exchange for approximately $3 billion.

The agreement is retroactive to January 1, 2014 and covers substantially all of Liberty Mutual’s domestic environmental and asbestos related liabilities arising under insurance and reinsurance policies with effective dates before January 1, 2005.  Also covered are its U.S. workers compensation liabilities for injuries or accidents occurring prior to January 1, 2014.  NICO will assume responsibility for claims handling relating to Liberty’s asbestos and environmental claims while Liberty continues to handle its workers compensation claims. Continue reading “LIBERTY MUTUAL SHEDS ENVIRONMENTAL, ASBESTOS AND WORKERS COMP CLAIMS IN RETROACTIVE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY”

Supreme Court Ruling Expected on North Carolina Statute May Bar Camp Lejeune Marines Contamination Lawsuit

Written by David A. O’Neill, JD, Director of Investigations, PolicyFind

 

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case styled CTS Corp. v. Waldburger on April 23, 2014.  At issue was whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had rightly concluded that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) preempted a North Carolina statute setting a date after which a law suit against a polluter could be brought following the detection of damage from environmental contamination.  The Court’s decision is expected in June.

The case involves the recent discovery of dangerous levels of carcinogenic solvents in drinking water wells in Asheville, North Carolina.  From 1959 to 1985, CTS Corp. had manufactured electronic parts in a nearby factory and stored these solvents on-site.  When soil and groundwater contamination was discovered in 2009, the present landowner sought a ruling from the U.S. District Court that CTS was responsible for property damage and for removing the contaminants. The District Court, however, ruled for CTS, citing a state statute imposing a date certain for when such suits could no longer be brought.  It stated that this “statute of repose” barred suits brought more than ten years after CTS’s “last act or omission” at the site. Continue reading “Supreme Court Ruling Expected on North Carolina Statute May Bar Camp Lejeune Marines Contamination Lawsuit”