HNRK Coverage Corner
On December 29, 2020, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. NL Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 34331(U), denying CGL carriers’ motions for summary judgment, despite a final judgment in the underlying action holding the insured liable for “intentionally and affirmatively promoting lead paint for interior residential use with actual knowledge of the public health hazard that it would create.”
The coverage dispute in NL Industries involved some “320 insurance policies spanning over 70 years.” Some of the policies contained express exclusions for an “expected or intended” harm. The insurers argued that such exclusions were triggered given the finding that the insured (NL Industries) intentionally promoted its lead paint despite knowledge of the public health risks it posed. Even in the absence of such an exclusion, the insurers argued that coverage was barred by the so-called “fortuity doctrine,” pursuant to which “insurance is not available for losses that the policyholder knows of, planned, intended, or is aware are substantially certain to occur.” Justice Masley denied the insurers’ motions for summary judgment, explaining:
As to the policies that do contain the exclusion, New York courts tended to read the ‘expect or intend’ provisions fairly narrowly, meaning the courts generally read ‘expect or intend’ provisions to exclude only those losses or damages that are not accidental. In general, what makes injuries or damages expected or intended rather than accidental are the knowledge and intent of the insured. It is not enough that an insured was warned that damages might ensue from its actions, or that, once warned, an insured decided to take a calculated risk and proceed as before.
Conduct engaged in with the intent to cause injury is not covered by insurance. However, it is a well-established insurance principle that there can be liability coverage for an insured’s liability arising out of his own intentional act if the resulting injury or damage was not intended. . . . It is not legally impossible to find accidental results flowing from intentional causes, i.e., that the resulting damage was unintended although the original act or acts leading to the damage were intentional. The general rule remains that more than a causal connection between the intentional act and the resultant harm is required to prove that the harm was intended. . . .
[I]n New York, there is a distinction between knowledge of the risk of hazardous consequences, and the intention to cause harm. For example, in Union Carbide v Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 101 AD3d 434 (1st Dept 2012), the First Department held that the insured’s sale of asbestos with knowledge of its risk of harm, was not equivalent to the insured’s intention to cause harm. The First Department found that “[p]laintiff’s ‘calculated risk’ in manufacturing and selling its products despite its awareness of possible injuries and claims does not amount to an expectation of damage.” . . . Thus, the Insurers have failed to meet their burden on this motion as they have failed to make a prima facie case that NL’s conduct is uninsurable under policies containing the exclusion.
Justice Masley similarly rejected the insurers’ argument that NL Industries’ conduct was uninsurable under the fortuity doctrine, concluding that “the intention to cause injury” was the “standard by which the fortuity doctrine applies,” and there was “no evidence demonstrating an intent to cause harm when NL promoted the lead paint.” This decision illustrates that foreseeability of injury is not alone sufficient to exclude coverage under a CGL policy. As previously discussed on this blog, the New York Courts are more likely to find that a claim is excluded from coverage where the “damages . . . flow directly and immediately from an intended act” rather than “a chain of unintended though expected or foreseeable events that occurred after an intentional act.” Brooklyn Law Sch. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 849 F.2d 788, 789 (2d Cir. 1989). Thus, a lawsuit alleging that the insured committed an intentional assault might be excluded from coverage.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- CGL Policies
- D&O Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Occurrence/Accident
- Related Claims
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Rules of Interpretation
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018