Disclosure of Pollution Conditions during Underwriting: Coverage under Environmental Insurance Policies

Environmental insurance policies exclude undisclosed known pollution conditions. Litigation on the applicability of provisions defining known conditions suggests that policyholders: (1) should aim to avoid ambiguity; (2) carefully review applications before signing; (3) properly disclose facts; (4) clarify knowledge of confirmed releases; and (5) understand the need for and impact of further investigation based on consultant recommendations.     

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.     

中国环境污染责任保险制度的构想

在工业化过程中,环境污染的发生不仅频繁而且后果严重。单个污染企业承担责任的能力有限,致使污染受害者和公共环境损害往往得不到应有的赔偿。为分散企业环境污染赔偿责任,最大限度的保护受害者,尽量减少社会和国家的损失,有必要借鉴国外环境保险的经验,探索建立我国的环境污染责任保险制度。     

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.     

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.     

《环境污染强制责任保险管理办法(草案)》除外责任之探讨

除外责任具体内容的设计应考虑公益和私益的平衡,确保其在及时、有效分散与移转风险,削减社会管理成本的同时兼顾承保人、投保人、受害人三方的私益.《环境污染强制责任保险管理办法(草案)》中将"不可抗拒的自然灾害""环境污染犯罪"的除外责任限定于"致使第三者遭受的损害"不妥,保险公司不应为生态环境损害承担保险责任;将"环境污染...     

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.     

责任保险中的连带责任承担问题——以机动车商业三责险条款为分析样本

当责任保险中的被保险人与共同致害人一起对受害第三人承担连带责任时,保险合同格式条款能否将该连带责任从保险责任中加以排除,这是司法实践中存在较大争议的问题。争议的焦点在于,机动车商业三责险等一般责任保险中的按责赔付条款能否在司法判决中得到承认并加以适用。通过对责任保险的责任内涵及责任保险独特的摆脱不利等保障功能的分析,从责任保险格式条款内容控制的角度,主张连带责任的免除条款构成格式条款的意外免责条款,其免责效力不应得到承认而应受到限制。     

Busting the Myth of the Unavailability of Insurance Rule's Application to Loss Allocation for Pollution Liability Claims Since 1986

Tens of millions of dollars in pollution liability losses have been mistakenly allocated to general liability insurers under the “Unavailability of Insurance” rule in jurisdictions that employ it. Under this rule, a policyholder is not allocated losses for years when they claim that pollution liability was unavailable – mainly after the advent of the 1986 “absolute” pollution exclusion. Recent research has been compiled to include thousands of pages of evidence that by 1986 and to this date there was and has been a viable pollution liability insurance market that would not only underwrite a current year's risks, but also erase any prior pollution insurance coverage gaps by insuring decades of prior acts. This article looks at this rule and the enormous impact it could have on insurers' pollution liability reserves if it continues to be misapplied.     

机动车交通事故共同侵权损害赔偿中的“交强险”承担规则

在两辆以上的投保机动车发生交通事故共同侵权时，若干保险公司的赔偿责任怎么承担？较为合理的思路是：多家保险公司在责任限额内对一个受害人承担赔偿责任时，要遵循“比例责任”和“有限连带”的一般规则．以实现以人为本、损害补偿的侵权责任法的价值追求。     

监护人责任若干争议问题探讨

我国《侵权责任法》第32条第1款确立了监护人责任适用无过错责任原则,并设有责任减轻事由;该条第2款不涉及归责原则问题,仅关涉有财产的被监护人与其监护人之间如何支付赔偿费用的内部关系;该条的两款规定,形成了"外部、内部关系区分"的体系构造。在关涉被监护人致人损害的数人侵权中,数个致害人的监护人之间及其监护人与其他责任主体之间形成的责任形态难以统一规定,应区分不同的责任主体并结合侵权类型具体认定。由于我国立法上未承认限制行为能力人和无行为能力人的侵权责任能力,故在被监护人致人损害的情况下,其责任主体是监护人,而非被监护人;在监护人责任纠纷诉讼中,应单列监护人为被告。     

论船舶承租人的油污损害赔偿责任

按照油污损害赔偿民事责任公约的规定,船舶所有人对船舶溢油而产生的费用和造成的损失承担责任,承租人 无需承担责任。但是,公约并不禁止船东在承担了责任之后再依据租船合同和相关国内法的规定向承租人追偿。 1990年美国油污法扩大了责任主体的范围,依照该法,不仅船舶所有人,而且船舶承租人和船舶经营人也要承担 责任。可以说,前者是承租人的一种间接责任,而后者则是一种直接责任。这两种责任的性质、基础有所不同,责 任人是否可以享受责任限制也有所区别。