For a period of seven years during the late 1970s and early 1980s, two companies, AAA and BBB shared a common parent. Both were insured under the parent's insurance program. Both were sold to new owners and AAA and BBB are no longer related companies. Both AAA and BBB have been named in numerous asbestos personal injury claims, and both have triggered the insurance policies bought by their former common parent.
Here's the rub. AAA is aggressively and successfully defending the asbestos lawsuits and has consumed virtually none of the primary limits on its former parent's policies. BBB, on the other hand, has paid millions in settlements and has exhausted several of the shared policies.
AAA feels aggrieved. It was (and remains) much bigger than BBB, and paid a much larger share of the premiums. The insurer feels it must make payments on a first-come, first-served basis. AAA wants the insurer to apportion the remaining primary limits and applicable excess claims. Is AAA's claim improved if the insurer has accepted the defense of both parties, but is exerting more control over BBB's settlements? What can AAA do vis the insurer and BBB?
Recent Comments