قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Chubb units are trying to dismiss the $ 32.6 million jury trial in coal mining

Chubb units are trying to dismiss the $ 32.6 million jury trial in coal mining



Chubb Ltd. entities ask a court in Charleston, West Virginia, to grant its summary judgment proposal following a $ 32.6 million judgment by the jury for failing to pay damages in connection with a coal mine silo collapse.

Lexington, Kentucky-based Ramaco Resources LLC restarted mining facilities in Elk Creek, West Virginia, in 2012, employing nearly 300 workers, according to court documents in Ramaco Resources, LLC v. Federal Insurance Co. and Ace American Insurance Co. filed in the U.S. District Court in Charleston.

Ramaco received insurance for the mining industry from the Chubb unit Federal Insurance 2018 which covered direct physical loss or damage as well as lost business income and additional costs . 1

9659002] In November 2018, a silo that stored raw coal collapsed before being transported by conveyor to a processing plant. The silo, which contained about 800 tons of coal at the time, was damaged to the extent that it was later necessary to tear it down, the company said.

Chubb denied coverage in connection with the collapse, stating that the losses were caused by wear and tear, planning design, materials or maintenance not covered by the policy, according to the company, which sued the Chubb units.

The $ 32.6 million verdict announced on Friday included a $ 25 million award for insurance policy violations, $ 3.3 million for additional costs, $ 3.8 million for business income loss and $ 532,941 in advance interest .

The Chubb units submitted a renewed request for a summary judgment on the same day as the jury's judgment. The insurer claimed in the proposal that "damage to deterioration and inconvenience is inaccessible by law"; allegations of aggravation and inconvenience are ruled out by a "breach of evidence"; and that insurers have suffered prejudice due to failure to invoke and disclose damages "with specificity."

Lawyers in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

Catalog


Source link