GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO. et al
ORDERED THAT THE "ASBESTOS EXCLUSION" CONTAINED IN THE "EXCESS OVERLAYER INDEMNITY" INSURANCE POLICIES IS AMBIGUOUS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASBESTOS EXCLUSION THAT FAVORS INSURANCE PROTECTION FOR THE POLICYHOLDER, PLAINTIFF GRC APPLIES AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/3/2015. 3/3/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY
FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2015, after a bench trial on November 3, 2014, and
consideration of the parties’ respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
hereby ORDERED and DECLARED that the “Asbestos Exclusion” contained in the “Excess
Overlayer Indemnity” insurance policies,1 which were sold by defendant Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company, formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”), to
plaintiff General Refractories Company (“GRC”), is ambiguous.
It is further ORDERED and DECLARED that the construction of the Asbestos
Exclusion that favors insurance protection for the policyholder, plaintiff GRC applies: That is,
the Asbestos Exclusion is not enforceable and is not effective to preclude insurance coverage for
GRC against underlying asbestos-related lawsuits, which sue “typically . . . for bodily injuries,
diseases, and fear of contracting the same, allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestoscontaining products manufactured, sold, and distributed by GRC.” Compl. ¶ 23.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ L. Felipe Restrepo
L. FELIPE RESTREPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The insurance policies are numbered, respectively, 01 XN 5442 WCA and 01 XN 5443 WCA.
Each policy was issued for the effective period, August 1, 1985 to August 1, 1986. Defendant Travelers’ trial
exhibits, D-1 and D-2.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?