Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court agreed to review Montrose Chemical Corporation’s appeal from a September appellate court ruling that rejected Montrose’s preferred “vertical exhaustion” method of exhausting excess-layer policies in favor of a policy-by-policy review to determine which policies are triggered. The California high court’s grant of Montrose’s petition for review is potentially significant in clarifying the appropriate excess policy exhaustion trigger under California law, not to mention in addressing a significant insurer defense in Montrose’s longstanding coverage dispute over environmental insurance coverage, which has been winding its way through California courts for more than 25 years.
Hunton & Williams’ Insurance Coverage lawyers Syed Ahmad, Andrea DeField and Jennifer White were featured in the Firm’s Recall Roundup, where they discuss recent noteworthy decisions on insurance coverage for product recalls:
Attorneys Syed Ahmad and Jennifer White contributed to the Hunton Retail Law Resource’s “Recall Roundup” for the month of March with a discussion a new cases in the world of recall-related insurance coverage litigation, including a new case filed by a policyholder against its insurance broker alleging that the broker was liable for misrepresentations in the electronic application that led the insurer to rescind coverage. Check out the blog post here.
Product recalls are on the rise in many industries. As regulatory and consumer protection standards are getting tougher, product supply chains are becoming more complex. This increases the risk of errors, defects and contamination at all levels of operation. Too often, these problems do not manifest themselves until after a product hits the market. All of this can lead to staggering expenses for food and product manufacturers facing the risks and realities of product recalls.
Attorneys Syed Ahmad and Jennifer White contributed to the Hunton Retail Law Resource’s “Recall Roundup” for the month of February with a discussion of Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company’s suit against CRF Frozen Foods, LLC. Starr seeks to rescind the a product contamination policy based on allegations that, during the insurance application process, CRF failed to disclose “violations” identified by Washington State and federal inspectors which, Starr claims, were likely to give rise to CRF’s 2016 recall of frozen vegetables. See Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. CRF Frozen Foods, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-01030 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017). Starr’s suit comes on the heels of its success before the Third Circuit earlier this year, when the court affirmed Starr’s rescission of the accidental contamination policy issued to Heinz. For more on that case, click here.