GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO. et al
Case Number:
2:04-cv-03509
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Clark Hill
- Coughlin Midlige
- Dilworth Paxson
- Hangley Aronchick
- Harvey Pennington
- Hogan Lovells
- Kennedys Law LLP
- Lewis Brisbois
- Lynberg & Watkins
- Margolis Edelstein
- Marshall Dennehey
- McAngus Goudelock
- McFarlin LLP
- Montgomery McCracken
- NLDH Law
- Offit Kurman
- Rivkin Radler
- Saul Ewing
- Shipman & Goodwin
- Stradley Ronon
- White and Williams
- Wilson Elser
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
September 09, 2015
Travelers Must Pay $15M Interest For Denied Asbestos Claims
A Pennsylvania federal judge on Wednesday awarded more than $15 million in interest to General Refractories Co. in its suit accusing Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of improperly denying coverage for thousands of asbestos exposure claims, denying the insurer's bid to avoid paying interest altogether.
-
July 15, 2015
Travelers OKs $21M In Asbestos Damages, Preps For Appeal
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. and General Refractories Co. agreed in Pennsylvania federal court Tuesday to forgo a trial over the insurer's damages for allegedly dodging coverage of thousands of asbestos claims, capping the potential payout at $21 million as Travelers gears up for an appeal.
-
June 02, 2015
Travelers Can't Block Evidence In $120M Asbestos Row
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. lost a bid on Monday to keep General Refractories Co. from bringing evidence of damages at the upcoming jury trial on GRC's $120 million suit for coverage of asbestos claims in Pennsylvania federal court.
-
April 20, 2015
Travelers Can't Raise New Asbestos Defense, Court Told
Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. missed its chance to distinguish between asbestos and products that contain the material in a $120 million dispute over coverage under its policies, General Refractories Co. told a Pennsylvania federal court in a motion for declaratory judgment filed Friday.
-
March 03, 2015
Travelers' Asbestos Exclusion Not Enforceable, Judge Says
An asbestos exclusion written into a pair of excess insurance policies issued to General Refractories Co. by Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.'s predecessor does not bar coverage for scores of asbestos-related lawsuits, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Tuesday, saying the exclusion is ambiguous and must be construed in the policyholder's favor.
-
November 03, 2014
Insurer Didn't Exclude All Asbestos Claims, Judge Told
A Pennsylvania federal judge was urged during a bench trial on Monday to find that asbestos exclusions written into a pair of excess insurance policies issued to General Refractories Co., which is facing tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits, did not exclude coverage for injuries stemming from asbestos-containing products.
-
January 15, 2014
Philly Jury Affirms Asbestos Exclusions In Coverage Row
General Refractories Co.'s bid to skirt liability in several asbestos-related product liability suits was dealt a blow Wednesday after a Philadelphia jury rejected arguments that Pennsylvania insurance regulators had made a policy of unilaterally denying exclusions for asbestos coverage sought by insurers.
-
January 14, 2014
Pa. Didn't Bar Asbestos Exclusions, Ex-Insurance Chief Says
Testifying as an expert in a dispute over liability for paying tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims, a former chief of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department told a Philadelphia jury on Tuesday that workers in the office were never ordered to issue blanket denials to insurers seeking to exclude asbestos coverage from their policies.
-
January 13, 2014
Pa. Insurance Policy Bars Asbestos Exclusions, Jury Hears
A Philadelphia jury heard arguments Monday that the exclusions relied on by Government Employees Insurance Co. and other insurers to avoid liability for tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims flew in the face of relevant Pennsylvania Insurance Department policy.
-
December 03, 2013
Judge OKs Evidence Standard In Asbestos Coverage Fight
General Refractories Co. succeeded Monday in persuading a Pennsylvania federal court to stick to the "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof instead of the higher "clear and convincing" standard the defendants had sought for a factual question in an upcoming trial over an asbestos litigation coverage dispute.