Insurance Coverage for Climate Change Suits: The Battle Has Begun

When it comes to climate change litigation, the stakes are almost as high for insurance companies as they are for the defendants they insure. Insurers therefore have strong incentives to closely parse their policies and pursue every possible basis for denying coverage, while policyholders, of course, have the opposite incentives. Given the novelty of the underlying claims, complex coverage issues involved, and high stakes, it is expected that the resulting insurance coverage disputes will be lengthy and hard-fought.

Climate change litigation has been slowly heating up, but the expected coverage battles have not materialized, until now that is. In July 2008 Steadfast Insurance Company filed the first coverage suit challenging an insurer's obligations to provide coverage for climate change-related suits against its insured: Steadfast Insurance Co. v. The AES Corporation, No. 2008-858 (Va. Cir. Ct.).

This article provides background on the Steadfast dispute, as well as the underlying climate change suit. It then examines each of the three coverage issues raised in the Steadfast suit: (1) whether the claims arise out of an “occurrence,” (2) whether the claims are barred by the “loss in progress” doctrine, and (3) whether the pollution exclusion applies. The article predicts that the outcome of Steadfast will likely turn on the pollution exclusion defense, but that even with respect to that issue, the insurer faces an uphill battle.     

Insurance Coverage for Environmental Claims: Current Litigation Issues in the United States

The insurance industry introduced exclusions for environmental claims in the general commercial litigation policies in the early 1970s, and introduced even greater restrictions in the 1980s. Litigation over the two most common pollution exclusions has been robust and will likely continue to increase. This article first briefly reviews the history of insurance coverage for environmental claims in the United States, including the most common issues and how the courts have addressed them. The article then discusses the current issues and emerging trends in insurance coverage for environmental claims under the general commercial policies. Finally, there is a brief discussion on the growing market for insurance products that specifically cover (rather than exclude) environmental claims.     

Identifying Successor Corporations Liable under CERCLA and Pursuing Insurance Coverage for That Liability

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) imposes liability well beyond general corporate successor rules. A company can allocate liability to other Potentially Responsible Parties as more culpable, taking advantage of CERCLA's joint and several liability. Often a source of recovery must be teased from a complex corporate history somehow connected to the site. This article examines the basis for attributing environmental liability to entities within a corporate history, before addressing how even a bankrupt or dissolved target may still have insurance that can be tapped. Similarly, CERCLA's strict liability enables recovery from insurance with some connection to either the target's or the company's corporate history, notwithstanding insurers' non-assignment arguments.     

Contested Insurance Coverage Issues: The Role of Extrinsic Evidence on the Duty to Defend

In the modern era, either the insurer or the policyholder seeks to introduce or limit the use of extrinsic evidence to resolve the duty to defend. This article examines the competing interests of the insurer and the policyholder where the use of extrinsic evidence is advanced to prove or disprove the duty to defend and how different state laws and courts treat the issue of contested coverage.     

Insurance Market for Global Warming Heats Up: Old Products and New Policies Respond to Climate Change Risks

Climate change, characterized by higher surface and water temperatures, will likely lead to more frequent and severe storms, floods, rising sea levels, wildfires, and loss of a variety of species. The monetary loss attributable to these events could be enormous, resulting in a variety of first-party insurance claims and third-party lawsuits. The availability of insurance coverage to pay these claims will depend on the nature of weather-related losses and the particular policies in force. Insurers have also begun to develop products that pay to rebuild to “greener” standards after fortuitous losses, encourage lower carbon emissions, and provide incentives for the implementation of sustainable business and personal practices.     

Getting the Big Picture on Nanotechnology Insurance Issues: Addressing Coverage Issues for Long Tail Claims Can Help Prevent Big Headaches

The possible applications of nanotechnology seem limitless and span across a wide variety of industries including manufacturing, agriculture, environment, pharmaceuticals, health care, security, information technology, communications, energy, chemicals, and even space exploration. However, the potential loss scenarios could go far beyond anything experienced to date and could bring about a new dimension in personal injury, property damage, and third-party liability risks.

Insurers and re-insurers have been keeping a close eye on the development of nanotechnology. Of particular concern is the prospect that nanotechnology may give rise to “long tail” liabilities such as the asbestos, environmental, and toxic tort liabilities that have plagued insurers, policyholders, and society in the United States. Businesses involved in any aspect of nanotechnology should be prepared for possible liabilities arising out of progressive injuries by conducting meaningful risk management and familiarizing themselves with their insurance coverage programs to avoid having big, uninsured problems if they are confronted with losses arising from nanoscale materials.     

我国社会保险立法中的养老保险问题

社会主义市场经济体制需要完善的社会保障制度。但我国的社会保障立法相对滞后,还没有制定出一部有关社会保障的专门法律。我国应对社会保险立法中的养老保险覆盖范围、养老保险基金的来源、养老保险待遇、养老保险管理等问题进行探讨并立法。