Maritime Insurance Law Attorneys: Protection & Indemnity and Other Maritime Coverages
Pillsbury & Levinson LLP has recently established new law in California applying the "all sums" principals in CGL policies to asbestos claims arising under the Jones Act and compensable under protection and indemnity and other maritime coverages.
In recent years, asbestos litigation has focused on the maritime industry. Asbestos was used liberally aboard ships from the 1940s until the 1990s. Many maritime workers were exposed to asbestos aboard ship and decades later developed asbestos related injury, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Today, those workers are suing their former maritime employers and winning large verdicts and settlements.
All Sums vs. Pro Rata Payment
For each year of a claimant's asbestos exposure, a different insurance policy was in effect. Which insurer is responsible for covering a shipping company's claim?
The insurance companies argue that they are each responsible for only a portion of the claim and that it is the policyholder's responsibility to collect from them individually. In addition, they want the maritime company to pay a deductible for every year of coverage.
This approach essentially denies coverage to the insured. The cost of establishing and collecting insurance coverage and paying a deductible would be greater than the amount of coverage owed by a single carrier.
Our insurance litigation attorneys made new law by establishing the right of a maritime company to collect "all sums" — the total amount of a claim — from any insurance carrier it was insured by during the entire period of asbestos exposure.
It is up to the insurance companies — not the policyholder — to collect their equitable contribution from each other. And the maritime firm pays just one deductible.
All Sums for Six Days at Risk
To firmly establish this right in California case law, our lawyers selected one insurance carrier who had been at risk for six days in 1950 - out of 30 years of exposure. That one carrier was required to pay 100 percent of the defense costs and 100 percent of the judgment.
This successful decision: Matson Navigation Company, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-04-436415, September 18, 2006) establishes not only the right of maritime companies to select a single insurer to pay all sums, but it ruled that a presumption arises, which permits the maritime company to avoid having to establish liability against itself before it is entitled to collect insurance from its P&I insurer. The text of this decision can be dowloaded here.
After achieving substantial successes in maritime all sums claims, our attorneys are expanding the application of this law to other areas of practice, including construction defect litigation.
To learn more about the intersection of insurance law and maritime law or to discuss how an all sums approach may apply to your firm's insurance dispute, please contact Pillsbury & Levinson, LLP. From offices in San Francisco, we represent clients throughout California.
