The Road to Insurance Recovery
- Posts by Kim WinterPartner
An insurance coverage and insolvency attorney with more than 20 years of experience, Kim Winter possesses great insight and perspective into complex coverage disputes. She serves as the leader of the firm's Insurance Recovery & ...
Lathrop GPM Insurance Recovery attorneys Sarah Lintecum and Alana McMullin, along with LGPM Environmental & Tort Partner Ally Cunningham, recently co-authored an article for Law360 titled “Cos. Should Review Insurance Policies for PFAS Coverage.” (If you’re not yet familiar with PFAS, see Lathrop GPM’s primer on the topic.)
When facing a lawsuit, most policyholders would understandably rather use familiar, trusted defense counsel instead of attorneys chosen by their insurer.
Lathrop GPM Insurance Recovery attorneys are busy advising clients on insurance coverage issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve also been tapped to share insights with various media outlets on this topic and several others recently. Below please find a collection of articles and media clips since our last round-up on May 4:
Mass protests have erupted across the United States – from Los Angeles to New York. Though many of these protests are peaceful and benign, some have led to significant property loss by arson and vandalism, as well as theft, in addition to business interruption damages due to necessary closure of impacted stores and offices. Businesses of all sizes are left wondering whether and how they can recover from these events. First on the list should be to review all potential insurance coverage and promptly submit claims to relevant insurance carriers.
Lathrop GPM Insurance Recovery attorneys are busy advising clients on insurance coverage issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve also been tapped to share insights with various media outlets on the topic. Below please find a sampling of articles and media clips since the last time a listing was shared on our March 25, 2020 blog post:
The answer is maybe; but you will not know without a thorough review of all potentially applicable policies.
Lathrop GPM Insurance Recovery attorneys are busy advising clients on insurance coverage issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve also been tapped to share insights with various media outlets on the topic. Below please find a sampling of articles and media clips:
Montrose v. Superior Court and the Future of Exhaustion Under California Law.
When a policyholder faces a “long-tail” claim (i.e., a claim involving injury that remains undetected for some time after the alleged wrongdoing, and the harm may have been sustained over a number of years—even decades), like property damage and bodily injury claims arising out of alleged environmental contamination or asbestos exposure, there are often multiple years and layers of primary and excess insurance policies that provide coverage. However, there are also many issues that may arise, making it difficult for insureds to collect all relevant coverage. For example, the insured may have trouble finding all applicable policies that were in place at relevant times, there may have been mergers and acquisitions that complicate matters, some coverage may have become insolvent, etc.
A key legal issue that impacts the manner in which policyholders may collect all relevant coverage is whether the insured must first exhaust all underlying primary coverage in place during the time of alleged harm before it is allowed to tap into valuable excess coverage (often called “horizontal” exhaustion), or whether it may choose to first collect the primary and excess coverage in any given year before seeking to collect other years of coverage (often called “vertical” or “all sums” exhaustion). While horizontal v. vertical exhaustion (or some variant thereof) is a state-by-state issue, the Supreme Court of California in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 406 P.3d 327 (Cal. 2017) recently set the stage for potentially one of the most impactful coverage decisions on this issue in decades. There, the California Supreme Court recently granted the policyholder, Montrose’s, request to decide whether it must exhaust all its primary policies on the risk before recovering under any of its excess policies for environmental damages.
The Montrose coverage dispute began in 1990 and arose out of the policyholder, Montrose’s, long-running efforts to procure coverage for over $100 million in damages incurred in a CERCLA action. The action arose out of Montrose’s production of the pesticide DDT at its facility in Torrance, California, between 1947 and 1982 and implicates nearly two dozen insurers that issued both primary and excess policies to Montrose.
About this Blog
Lathrop GPM is one of the largest law firms in the United States representing policyholders, providing policyholders with the necessary guidance and legal counsel to handle everything from negotiating coverage and managing risk to litigating insurance disputes and recovery. The Road to Insurance Recovery blog is dedicated to helping readers better understand and manage the complexities of the modern business insurance policy.