ST. LOUIS – Two insurance companies battled one another in court after a client won an asbestos claim according to a May 8 opinion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Eastern Division.
Zurich American Insurance Company (ZAIC) and Insurance Company of North America (INA) were insurance providers for Anheuser-Busch LLC (A-B) when A-B claimed it was exposed to asbestos. ZAIC paid the entire amount agreed upon in a settlement and then filed a lawsuit for equitable contribution, subrogation and unjust enrichment against INA and its insured, A-B.
The district court pointed out since ZAIC and INA include “all sums” provisions in their policies as well as the promise to pay for any damage that “occurs during the policy period,” the true argument asks which insurance company needs to pay considering the asbestos claims occurred when A-B was insured by both companies.
The district court ruled against ZAIC in its claim against A-B. It said that Missouri law states the “all sums” provision means each “triggered insurer” is responsible for the insured’s “entire loss.” It said ZAIC is responsible for A-B’s loss but pointed out it could seek contribution from INA considering ZAIC paid the full settlement.
The court stated the notion of whether ZAIC will be able to receive contribution from INA is still unanswered. While INA points out it has a different responsibility to A-B because of its pollution exclusion and deductible endorsements regulations in its policy, the court granted requests from both insurance company to brief the issue.
Considering this, the court granted ZAIC’s motion to reconsider in part and denied it in part. It granted A-B’s motion for summary judgment and reiterated its ruling to dismiss ZAIC’s claims against A-B.
The court also permitted ZAIC to depend on the second motion for summary judgment it already filed and granted ZAIC the option to submit an amended version. It also stated INA could file another motion.