The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed that state law permits an “unavailability of insurance” rule, under which a policyholder is not liable to pay a share of its own defense and indemnity costs for periods when insurance for a certain risk was unavailable in the marketplace. Instead, those costs must be divvied up on a proportional, or “pro rata,” basis among insurers that issued policies covering the risk in other periods. The court applied the rule in Vanderbilt because the insured was unable to obtain coverage after 1985 for individuals’ claims for asbestos injuries allegedly caused by exposure to the company’s industrial talc. The court also affirmed that an “occupational disease” exclusion in some of Vanderbilt’s policies bars coverage not only for asbestos claims brought by the company’s own workers, but also those brought by people who were allegedly sickened by Vanderbilt’s products in the “course of their work for other employers.”

Hunton insurance recovery partner, Syed Ahmad, explained that, “as with other decisions breaking new ground, this case will naturally be the focus for future battles in other states about the scope of this and similar exclusions. Time will tell if what the court did here will be the start of a trend, with other courts following suit, or if the case will turn out to be an outlier with other states going their separate ways.” This case is R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 216 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2019).

Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law.