Plaintiff, which used asbestos fiber in manufacturing, sealing, and packing products, has been named a defendant in over 325,000 cases claiming exposure to its asbestos-containing products. Plaintiff filed a claim for declaratory judgment that its primary insurance coverage was exhausted and sought a declaration of the obligations of its umbrella and excess carriers. Plaintiff later entered into settlement agreement with its insurers, and from then "stood in the shoes" of its insurer as to any obligations under the primary policies. Court conducted a 23-day bench trial on whether the 141 claims Plaintiff had paid in underlying asbestos cases exhausted the primary policies, and found that, based on Plaintiff's expert's misallocation of some claims, the policies were not exhausted. Court properly denied Plaintiff's request for new trial. Court's determination that Plaintiff's expert's methodology for allocating claims was erroneous was not against manifest weight of evidence. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; MIKVA, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance