HNRK Coverage Corner
On September 22, 2022, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Case No. 20-4282, ruling than an insured’s below limits settlement with an excess insurer satisfied the exhaustion requirement of a higher-tier excess policy.
The insured, ASARCO, was a mining, smelting and refining company facing liability in the hundreds of millions for personally injury claims arising from alleged asbestos exposure. Its insurance program for the relevant period consisted of three excess policies issued by Fireman’s Fund: the first covered $20 million in losses in excess of $30 million for 1982-1983; the second covered $20 million in losses in excess of $30 million for 1983-1984; and the third covered $20 million in losses in excess of $75 million, also for the 1983-1984. Fireman’s Fund, in turn, obtained reinsurance for $3 million of the third policy from OneBeacon Insurance Company.
Coverage litigation between ASARCO and Fireman’s Fund ensued. After concluding that its likely exposure under the three policies was $50.3 million, Fireman’s Fund settled with ASARCO for $35 million, $8.5 million of which was allocated to the third policy. OneBeacon denied the reinsurance claim, arguing that the entire $35 million settlement should have been allocated to the first two policies, and that because the first-layer excess policy for the 1983-1984 policy year was not exhausted by insurance payments up to the policy limit, the third excess policy was not triggered. The third policy’s Payment of Loss provision stated that the policy “shall apply only after all underlying insurance has been exhausted”, but did not define the term “exhausted”—and in particular, did not specify whether exhaustion could be satisfied by the insured incurring a loss up to the limit of the policy, or instead required full payment by the insurer.
Affirming the district court’s decision in favor of Fireman’s Fund, the Second Circuit ruled that the third excess policy’s exhaustion requirement was ambiguous and could be satisfied by a below-limits settlement, so long as the policyholder’s covered losses exceed the underlying policy’s limit of liability:
The Payment of Loss provision, while providing that Policy 3 “shall apply only after all underlying insurance has been exhausted,” does not define the term “exhausted.” As the district court concluded, the applicable precedent tells us that this provision standing alone does not unambiguously require actual payment up to the policy limits by the underlying insurers. . . .
Here, because the Payment of Loss provision in Policy 3 does not specify any particular form of exhaustion, a below-limits settlement of the underlying policies is sufficient to exhaust . . . absent unambiguous exhaustion language elsewhere in the policy.
The Court acknowledged that there could be valid reasons to condition excess coverage on actual payment of the underlying policy limit. Nevertheless, relying on a venerable precedent—Judge Learned Hand’s decision in Zieg v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 23 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1928)—the Court declined to require such a payment in the absence of express language mandating it.
- 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
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- 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