قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Decision was confirmed against the Berkshire unit in the Montanaas best case

Decision was confirmed against the Berkshire unit in the Montanaas best case



The Supreme Court of Montana on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that a unit in Berkshire Hathaway Inc. must pay $ 97.8 million in asbestos claims and other costs to the state under a comprehensive general liability policy it issued for 1973 to 1975. [19659002] 69 pages, 6-1 majority decision in National Indemnity Co. V. State of Montana essentially confirms a judgment of March 2018 against the Berkshire Hathaway unit by a lower court in Bozeman.

The court held in the previous judgment that the state was aware of dangerous conditions, injuries and deaths related to a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, since 1942.

The mine, which later became a Superfund site, was owned and operated by WR Grace and Co. and its predecessors. The insurance-related dispute concerned underlying litigation against the state related to its regulatory role. . according to the Supreme Court ruling, this consists of $ 26.8 million for the remainder of a global settlement in 2009, giving credit to National Indemnity for the $ 1

6.1 million it had contributed, and $ 21.3 million in accompanying interest on the preliminary ruling; $ 29.6 million to reimburse the State for settlements paid to applicants exposed during the insurance period and $ 4.9 million in accompanying pre-trial interest; $ 6.9 million for state attorney's fees and costs to defend claims between 2005 and 2019; $ 4.9 million for preliminary ruling interest on state defense defense costs; and $ 3.6 million for state attorney's fees and costs to defend litigation until March 2019.

The court referred two issues to the lower court: the number of incidents under the policy and the resulting calculation of policy limits, and the jurisdiction of plaintiffs exposed to asbestos only before the insurance period.

A dissenting opinion stated that National had not violated its obligation to defend the state.

Actors in the case did not respond to requests for comment.

Catalog


Source link