Hey Hartford’s Scr@#ed, you could be write. FYI Hartford’s coverage is definitely occurrence with defense outside.
The CEO of this place, though, did get caught somehow admitting that he knew that he was shipping tainted stuff. Sounds like an intentional act to me but then again the judge will probably not want to remove the primary source of compensation for victims, just like what happened with E2 in Rhode Island.
Many businesses and carriers ended up paying on that even though their products only burned in the fire and did not start it.
Invoking the intentional act exclusion is dicey at best even under the most favorable facts. A judge will be most reluctant to exclude coverage. Can Hartford prove intent to harm? I doubt it. In the meantime Hartford most likely has a duty to defend. In the end Hartford will probably pay policy limits plus huge defense costs. If harm has occurred over multiple policy terms Hartford could be on the hook for multiple policy limits. This all assumes the coverage is occurrence with supplementary payments in addition to the limits.
I highly recommend an article that IJ printed inside their hardcopy/downloadable March 9, 2009 issue regarding this topic and Hartford’s response to it. The daily blurbs that we see here don’t always include all the articles they publish.
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.
Hey Hartford’s Scr@#ed, you could be write. FYI Hartford’s coverage is definitely occurrence with defense outside.
The CEO of this place, though, did get caught somehow admitting that he knew that he was shipping tainted stuff. Sounds like an intentional act to me but then again the judge will probably not want to remove the primary source of compensation for victims, just like what happened with E2 in Rhode Island.
Many businesses and carriers ended up paying on that even though their products only burned in the fire and did not start it.
Invoking the intentional act exclusion is dicey at best even under the most favorable facts. A judge will be most reluctant to exclude coverage. Can Hartford prove intent to harm? I doubt it. In the meantime Hartford most likely has a duty to defend. In the end Hartford will probably pay policy limits plus huge defense costs. If harm has occurred over multiple policy terms Hartford could be on the hook for multiple policy limits. This all assumes the coverage is occurrence with supplementary payments in addition to the limits.
I highly recommend an article that IJ printed inside their hardcopy/downloadable March 9, 2009 issue regarding this topic and Hartford’s response to it. The daily blurbs that we see here don’t always include all the articles they publish.