In a verdict worth more than $52 million to two insurers, a Pennsylvania federal judge has enforced a policy exclusion that bars claims for "exposure to asbestosis" despite calling the phrase "nonsensical." While the judge noted that no one can be injured from exposure to a person with asbestosis, he held the clause at issue was designed to bar all asbestos-related claims. The plaintiff, a manufacturer named in tens of thousands of claims, had argued that only specific asbestosis claims were excluded.
April 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
In a verdict worth more than $52 million to a pair of insurers, a federal court has enforced a policy exclusion that bars claims for “exposure to asbestosis” despite finding that the phrase “does not make sense.”
U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel’s 122-page opinion in AstenJohnson Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. announced his verdict after a three-week nonjury trial held last year.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
