In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.”
In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis.
Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said.
“It is incumbent on policyholders and their brokers or insurance advisers to be thinking strategically, and to the extent an exclusion contains this type of broad language, they should have a dialogue with their carriers and push back to try to limit its use,” Podolak said.
Click here to read the entire story. You will need a subscription to Law360 to read this article.
Apr 28, 2017
Gregory D. Podolak