|
|
|
News | Alexander Giles Elected To The Board of Directors For The Maritime Law Association Of The United States (MLA)
News | Alexander Giles Honored as Member of the Year for the International Propeller Club of the United States
Event | Semmes to host National Association of Women Judges Forum on the Judicial Selection Process
News | Semmes Ranked Among Best Law Firms In The Baltimore Metropolitan Area
News | Ten From Semmes Named in Baltimore's Best Lawyers for 2012
News | 17 Semmes’ Attorneys Named in "Maryland Super Lawyers for 2011"
Event | Seminars On Workplace Harassment Offered By Semmes Attorneys
News | Semmes Welcomes New Attorneys
|
News, Events & Seminars
Overseas Products Liability Claims and Insurance Disputes:
How Simple Exclusion Language Can Save Millions by Kevin M. Cox.
For more information, contact Robert E. Scott
The products liability litigation arena has recently seen an influx of overseas
production processes litigation. Last year’s massive recalls on products such as
children's toys and pet food are just a two examples of the growing trend.
Insurance defense practitioners are beginning to realize the impact of such
litigation and that massive and expensive product liability claims based on
overseas production are a new reality.
A recent decision, Ace American Inc. Co. v. RC2 Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D.
Ill. 2008), focuses on insurance coverage in these circumstances, addresses
issues that products practitioners need to know, and holds that an insurer has a
duty to defend its insured in suits arising out of product recalls of products
made outside of the United States if included in the coverage territory. In RC2
Corp., a federal district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois,
applying Illinois law, held that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured, a
toymaker, in suits arising out of the product recalls. The policyholder was sued
by parents of children in the United States, alleging various theories of
exposure and harm from toys contaminated with lead paint that were made in
China, but sold in the United States. The insurer issued four successive
liability insurance policies to the policyholder, the maker of the toys. Each of
the policies stated that "the 'occurrence' must take place in the 'coverage
territory.'" The coverage territory provision included "all of the world outside
of the United States." After the policyholder sought coverage for these
underlying actions, the insurer denied that it had a duty to defend or indemnify
the insured because, inter alia, of the coverage territory of the policies.

In addressing the coverage territory issues, the court
stated that what constituted the relevant "occurrence" for purposes of a
coverage territory provision was a matter of first impression under Illinois
law. The court rejected the insurer's argument that coverage was barred
because the harm for which the underlying plaintiffs sought redress took
place in the United States. The court reasoned that "[t]he language of the
[policies] refers to Harm that is "caused by an 'occurrence'" and that "here
the occurrence is separately identified as being the cause of the Harm" and
that the "Harm is not itself part of the occurrence." The court further
reasoned that "[t]he language is written in the positive" so that:
For there to be coverage, the occurrence must take place
in the coverage territory. It is not required that the Harm take place in
the coverage territory but only during the Policy Period. In this situation,
the occurrence took place in the coverage territory of China. By contrast,
if the provision had been written in the negative, the result could be
different. If there had been an exclusion providing that there is no
coverage for Harm that took place inside the United States, then the case
would fall under such exclusion.
Though the court found against the insurer in this case,
the court did direct litigators and insurers as to how to prevent such a
costly occurrence from reoccurring. For insurers of overseas product
manufacturers to prevent similar coverage disputes from being brought in the
future, insurers should include exclusions in their policies providing that
there is no coverage for harm, bodily injury, and/or damages that occur
inside the United States. In this case, such simple language may have
prevented costly litigation and saved millions of dollars.
to top of page
|
|
|