FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• City of Littleton, Wallis, and Insurance For Multi-Year Liability Claims ( February 2000 )
  

  Recently the Colorado Supreme Court decided two important cases arising in the environmental insurance coverage context. The decisions are expected to have a major impact on the availability of insurance coverage for Colorado policyholders.

• Compass Insurance Co. v. City of Littleton--Colorado Supreme Court Adopts Second Discharge Analysis in Finding Insurance for City Environmental Liabilities ( August 1999 )
  

  On June 28, 1999, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a landmark decision addressing insurance coverage for the cities of Littleton and Englewood at the Lowry Landfill. In Compass Insurance Co. v. City of Littleton, the Colorado Supreme Court held that insurance companies issuing standard form comprehensive liability (CGL) insurance policies had to defend the cities against the EPA's allegations of environmental liability under Superfund.

• How to Locate Lost or Missing Policies in Reconstructing Insurance Coverage for Environmental Damage Claims ( August 1998 )
  

  The Standard Form Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policy or ("CGL") has been drafted on an industry-wide basis through organizations such as the Insurance Services Office (ISO), and its predecessor, the Insurance Rating Board. The Standard Form Comprehensive General Liability Policy contains common insuring agreements, definitions, exclusions, terms, and conditions, and in most respects varies insignificantly from one policy to another when analyzing for environmental damage claims coverage.

• Genetic Engineering: A "Potential" Emerging Coverage Issue? ( October 2004 )
  

  This article will explore the achievements of genetic engineering and the criticisms of its alleged risks. That discussion will serve as background to the prospects of insurance coverage for those policyholders which may some day need coverage for the genetically engineered products that some are afraid will cause property damage or bodily injury.

• Is Mold Toxic To Insurers? ( October 2004 )
  

  There has been a proliferation of mold-related insurance claims in recent years. The implications of this on the insurance industry have been, and continue to be serious. Media hype and increased public awareness has fueled a frenzy of claims against insurers for not only property damage and remediation of mold infestations in both residential and commercial properties, but also for personal injuries supposedly derived from exposure to mold. And, based on the propensity of mold for quick growth in the right climactic conditions, failure of insurers to quickly remediate during the pendency of coverage disputes has led to an influx of bad faith claims.

• CCA-Treated Wood Litigation and Insurance Coverage Issues ( February 2003 )
  

  Forecasting a potential litigation explosion arising from a company's allegedly hazardous product may be a determining factor as to whether a company survives the litigation storm or suffers a more dismal fate, such as bankruptcy. Unfortunately, forecasting the "mass-tort" phenomenon is an imperfect science and extremely difficult.

• District of Columbia's Highest Court to Decide Whether Pollution Exclusion in General Liability Insurance Policy Precludes Coverage of Carbon Monoxide Contamination ( November 2001 )
  

  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) has certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (D.C. Court of Appeals) the question of whether under District of Columbia law an "absolute" or "total" pollution exclusion in a general liability policy applies to injuries allegedly arising from a residential carbon monoxide poisoning.

• New Developments on Whether the Absolute Pollution Exclusion Clause Bars Coverage for Non-environmental Pollution ( November 2001 )
  

  The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently joined the majority by holding that xylene fumes created from the application of a floor sealant was a pollutant and therefore the absolute pollution exclusion barred coverage for damage caused by the fumes.

• Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Two Important Insurance Coverage Opinions ( November 2001 )
  

  In a case of first impression, the court adopted a broad standard for known loss doctrine. In a second case the court remanded a pollution exclusion case with endorsement of regulatory estoppel principle.

• Michigan Insurance Update ( June 2000 )
  

  This newsletter updates readers with the state of the law in Michigan relating to insurance issues.