- Organization: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
- Organization: Everest Reinsurance Company
- Clear filters
8 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Connecticut Appellate Court · March 7, 2017 · in the opinion
RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (2017)
…in other jurisdictions, that a pollution exclusion clause in a comprehensive general liability policy bars coverage only for traditional environmental pollution such as oil spills or the dumping of hazardous waste into the natural environment. Id.…
-
Court case · Connecticut Appellate Court · March 30, 2016 · in the opinion
RT Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. (2016)
…that\] would lie between arduous and Sisyphean." That commentary, however, was made not with respect to the general retroactive application of allocation rules but, rather, in the specific context of the court's determination that the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 19, 2024
Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024)
…its insurers from asserting the government contractor defense (Boyle/Yearsley). The plaintiffs did not seek judgment on the strict liability or general negligence claims. Failure to Warn; Government Contractor Defense and Removal Worksites: Avondale Shipyards (main…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2013 · in the opinion
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2013)
…that "\[t\]he Trustees shall consult with the TAC and the Future Claimants' Representative (i) on the general implementation and administration of the Asbestos PI Trust; (ii) on the general implementation and administration of the TDP…
-
Court case · Connecticut Supreme Court · March 28, 2019 · in the opinion
RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (2019)
…and accidental" exception to pollution exclusion was intended to preclude coverage for gradually occurring pollution, "so that only a temporally abrupt release of pollutants would be covered as an exception to the general pollution exclusion"). Indeed…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · June 16, 2011 · in the opinion
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2011)
…they function together. This finding is supported by evidence of record, including testimony cited by Mt. McKinley which established that Corning's General Counsel and Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Vincent P. Hatton, could not specify…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2013 · in the opinion
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2013)
…103:10-13 (Diggs). 68. Typically, the asbestos claims against PPG contained general products liability allegations, or allegations that might be interpreted in such a manner, asserted against all defendants, along with specific allegations about PPG…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · November 4, 1994 · in the opinion
US Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1994)
…coverage action when that proof has not yet been established in the underlying action. Courts have addressed these competing concerns by crafting the general rule that if an insured settles an underlying claim prior to verdict…