Let’s see: how many workers in how many countries where our armed forces have been over the Globe?? It’s a whole new legal territory for the Trial Lawyers to scavange……
And who’s going to foot the bill???
That’s right: Joe & Josephine Taxpayer.
So, rates will increase for US insureds to pay for these asbestos losses suffered by non-US citizens; it’s a great welfare program for US plaintiff’s attorneys – just as the asbestos well for US plaintiffs was drying up, a NJ court offers this bottomless reservoir to the attorneys.
Der.. It’s covered in an unendorsed CGL policy under the definition of “Covered Territory (item c.(1)):
“Coverage territory” means:
a. The United States of America (including its territories and possessions), Puerto Rico and Canada;
b. International waters or airspace, but only if the injury or damage occurs in the course of travel or transportation between any places included in a. above; or
c. All other parts of the world if the injury or damage arises out of:
(1) Goods or products made or sold by you in the territory described in a. above;
(2) The activities of a person whose home is in the territory described in a. above, but is away for a short time on your business; or
(3) “Personal and advertising injury” offenses that take place through the Internet or similar electronic means of communication
provided the insured’s responsibility to pay damages is determined in a “suit” on the merits, in the territory described in a. above or in a settlement we agree to.
Insurance 101 – the “goods or products” were manufactured in New Jersey…” and like it or not, last time I looked, NJ was still part of the US, it’s territories or posessions…albeit we sometimes choose to ignore this fact..
The only qualifyer is that tthe “suit” against the mfg (insured) is brought against them “in the covered territory”
Thanks for primer ?. However, I would find in hard to believe that the authors & users of the CGL contemplated [i.e.”intent”] that our court system, funded by U.S. Taxpayers, would play referee to every complaint for products MADE and SOLD in the USA. The injury clearly took place in a foriegn land. What do their [Spain]courts exist for then if not to service its own citizens?
Agree with 2lane – Its not the coverage that was in question it was the jurisdiction. International venue shopping – another reason to move manufacturing off-shore.
From what the article says, it is the fact that the U.S. warships represent actual U.S. territory that permits the Spanish workers’ claims to be heard in U.S. courts, just as if they had worked on U.S. soil, that was the jurisdictional determinant.
Relocate all manufacturing offshore? Why, so our trade balance can go all the REST of the way to Hades?
Are you one of those good flag-wavers who moans when jobs are cut, forcing fellow Americans out of their homes? Did you support NAFTA? CAFTA? Do you wear caftans? Or khaki? Do you know the difference, or do you care?
Face it folks. If we want the Chinese to be responsible for having too much lead in their products, then why shouldn’t US firms be responsible for their own goods in overseas markets? Don’t you see a double standard at work?
The extract of the CGL policy is correct – and appropriate. Coverage for damages incurred overseas is provided if suits are brought in US courts.
Please don’t fool yourself in thinking that we’re the only litiguous society going; maybe one of our biggest exports is not a product but rather a service – the Ambulance Chaser. There are a lot of good reasons why our companies should be both protected from frivolous lawsuits as well as open to legitimate cases.
Who knows; maybe all this activity will cause rates to harden a little, and fees and commissions to go up.
Reality: the difference is that a U.S. warship is not a consumer product we’re selling to the Spaniards. There needs to be an end to the asbestos nightmare. It amazes me how the courts have allowed current day insight to be applied retroactively to something that happened several decades ago. Anyone using asbestos should only be liable from the date they had actual or constructive notice it was dangerous. When I think of the billions of dollars that have been spent settling these never ending claims I want to puke. Enough already.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Let’s see: how many workers in how many countries where our armed forces have been over the Globe?? It’s a whole new legal territory for the Trial Lawyers to scavange……
And who’s going to foot the bill???
That’s right: Joe & Josephine Taxpayer.
So, rates will increase for US insureds to pay for these asbestos losses suffered by non-US citizens; it’s a great welfare program for US plaintiff’s attorneys – just as the asbestos well for US plaintiffs was drying up, a NJ court offers this bottomless reservoir to the attorneys.
Der.. It’s covered in an unendorsed CGL policy under the definition of “Covered Territory (item c.(1)):
“Coverage territory” means:
a. The United States of America (including its territories and possessions), Puerto Rico and Canada;
b. International waters or airspace, but only if the injury or damage occurs in the course of travel or transportation between any places included in a. above; or
c. All other parts of the world if the injury or damage arises out of:
(1) Goods or products made or sold by you in the territory described in a. above;
(2) The activities of a person whose home is in the territory described in a. above, but is away for a short time on your business; or
(3) “Personal and advertising injury” offenses that take place through the Internet or similar electronic means of communication
provided the insured’s responsibility to pay damages is determined in a “suit” on the merits, in the territory described in a. above or in a settlement we agree to.
Insurance 101 – the “goods or products” were manufactured in New Jersey…” and like it or not, last time I looked, NJ was still part of the US, it’s territories or posessions…albeit we sometimes choose to ignore this fact..
The only qualifyer is that tthe “suit” against the mfg (insured) is brought against them “in the covered territory”
Thanks for primer ?. However, I would find in hard to believe that the authors & users of the CGL contemplated [i.e.”intent”] that our court system, funded by U.S. Taxpayers, would play referee to every complaint for products MADE and SOLD in the USA. The injury clearly took place in a foriegn land. What do their [Spain]courts exist for then if not to service its own citizens?
Agree with 2lane – Its not the coverage that was in question it was the jurisdiction. International venue shopping – another reason to move manufacturing off-shore.
Another horrible decision. This is as bad as the SCOTUS (non)decision regarding the apartheid in South Africa. Judges – use some perspective please.
From what the article says, it is the fact that the U.S. warships represent actual U.S. territory that permits the Spanish workers’ claims to be heard in U.S. courts, just as if they had worked on U.S. soil, that was the jurisdictional determinant.
Relocate all manufacturing offshore? Why, so our trade balance can go all the REST of the way to Hades?
Are you one of those good flag-wavers who moans when jobs are cut, forcing fellow Americans out of their homes? Did you support NAFTA? CAFTA? Do you wear caftans? Or khaki? Do you know the difference, or do you care?
Face it folks. If we want the Chinese to be responsible for having too much lead in their products, then why shouldn’t US firms be responsible for their own goods in overseas markets? Don’t you see a double standard at work?
The extract of the CGL policy is correct – and appropriate. Coverage for damages incurred overseas is provided if suits are brought in US courts.
Please don’t fool yourself in thinking that we’re the only litiguous society going; maybe one of our biggest exports is not a product but rather a service – the Ambulance Chaser. There are a lot of good reasons why our companies should be both protected from frivolous lawsuits as well as open to legitimate cases.
Who knows; maybe all this activity will cause rates to harden a little, and fees and commissions to go up.
Well, it’s just a thought.
Reality: the difference is that a U.S. warship is not a consumer product we’re selling to the Spaniards. There needs to be an end to the asbestos nightmare. It amazes me how the courts have allowed current day insight to be applied retroactively to something that happened several decades ago. Anyone using asbestos should only be liable from the date they had actual or constructive notice it was dangerous. When I think of the billions of dollars that have been spent settling these never ending claims I want to puke. Enough already.