IBM recently filed a declaratory judgment action against multiple insurers seeking coverage for environmental remediation costs. The complaint contains lessons for policyholders facing long-tail environmental exposure claims....more
The question of whether ethylene oxide emissions constitute traditional environmental pollution for the purpose of interpreting commercial general liability pollution exclusions remains unsettled in many jurisdictions across...more
This article will discuss policyholder concerns after a California federal court recently found that some PFAS claims in an MDL were excluded under a pollution exclusion, but others were not. The case is Nat'l Foam, Inc. v....more
The insureds were sued for alleged environmental contamination from the operation of a marine terminal and chemical storage facility. The claimants alleged that hazardous materials leaked from storage tanks over a fifty-year...more
In Aloha Petroleum Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (Aloha), the Supreme Court of Hawai’i held that, while the climate change litigation satisfied the “occurrence” requirement, greenhouse gases...more
Ohio presents unique challenges to practitioners handling insurance claims in the state. Join Goldberg Segalla partners Michael A. Hamilton and Sean P. Hvisdas as they host a live, interactive webinar on some of the most...more
Join us for Hinshaw's Webinar Series: Insurance Insights – What Insurers Need to Know in 2021. This series will feature insurance thought leaders from Hinshaw and RPC, presenting on the most pressing insurance claims topics...more
Under Florida law, similar to that of other states, an insurer’s duty to defend is generally determined solely by the allegations found within the four corners of the complaint. Florida courts, however, recognize an exception...more
In a sweeping decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended the absolute pollution exclusion to the unplanned discharge of “rock fines,” pellets produced during quarry operations, and denied coverage for...more
In a 2017 opinion, Xia v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, the Washington State Supreme Court analyzed whether an insurer breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in refusing to defend its contractor insured...more
Ambiguity strikes again. While the heavily litigated pollution exclusion is well-known in the insurance world, its progeny—the indoor air exclusion—only recently has started making its way around the block. ...more
On July 10, 2018, Judge John H. McBryde of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, held an insurer owed no coverage to a New Jersey rock quarry owner for the accidental...more
A federal judge recently relied on a pollution exclusion to find that Great American Insurance Company was not obligated to cover losses associated with the unintended distribution of rock fines into New Jersey’s Spruce Run...more
JP Energy Marketing, LLC v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company, et al., No. 115285, 2018 Okla. LEXIS 11 (Okla. Feb. 5, 2018) - Oklahoma Supreme Court in a case of first impression authorizes an award of appeal-related...more
On August 17, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court declined to reconsider its recent landmark ruling in Xia v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Co. RRG, 393 P.3d 748 (Wash. 2017), that an absolute pollution exclusion in an...more
The latest round in the fight over the CGL’s “pollution exclusion” — which well-respected commentator Craig F. Stanovich has called “one of the least understood and most litigated portions” of the CGL — went to the insurance...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Northern District of Indiana rejected the insurer’s assertion that its pollution exclusion clauses unambiguously included all contaminants. Indiana, unlike other jurisdictions, is pro-insured when...more