Last Thursday, a federal district judge in New Jersey, in part, denied the Travelers Rescue Company (Travelers) motion summary summary claims, as the applicant, EM Sergeant Pulp & Chemical Company (EMS), provided sufficient evidence to address pleasant fax issues. Although the evidence was just "scarcely sufficient" to keep the case alive, as the Court expressed it, and although no direct evidence that the policy was even in place during the current period, the evidence was still sufficient to defeat the insurer's movement. 19659002] EMS, a distributor of industrial chemicals, sought cover and defense costs from travelers after being named in a government visa claiming land-based pollution from 1
During the discovery, no party could find a policy that covered the underlying requirements for the relevant time period. However, EMS discovered Ledger records suggesting that premium payments had been made for a policy that would cover the environmental requirement. an insurance application that refers to the settlement of another claim by travelers during the relevant period of time under a policy that may also have covered the environmental claim and a note indicating coverage at least in 1964.
In the case of a decision by the traveler's motion for summary judgment, federal judges recognized the "sharp" evidence provided by EMS, yet noted that EMS was sufficiently presented to deny the movement. Despite the small quantity of evidence, the court found the testimony of the EMS "insurance archeology" expert mandatory. The expert considered that the indirect evidence and the history of certain types of insurance suggested that the policies issued to EMS probably covered the types of liability that are relevant to the underlying dispute. The judge also found the convincing frequency with which witnesses and documents are not available in connection with long-term environmental employment, suggesting that the absence of such information here was not unusual. Consequently, the court denied the movement of the travelers about the existence and extent of the coverage. However, it also provided travelers' movement that confirmed the amount of potential recovery.
The decision is a reminder of the challenges posed by long-standing claims, especially when no party can find the policy. But the decision is also a reminder that courts will consider facts and opinions that usually show that the policy existed, and also what the policy would probably have covered. It is therefore important that policyholders are not discouraged from insuring themselves for insurance simply because they can no longer find their insurance. Other evidence may exist – and it is enough – for an experienced coverage group to use as the basis for a successful insurance claim. The case is E.M. Sergeant Pulp & Chem. Co., Inc., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Civ. Nr. 12-1741 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J. filed January 19, 2017).