Mesothelioma is an occupational disease caused by exposure to asbestos, and professional painters are among those being increasingly diagnosed with the rare form of cancer. Decades ago, paint and drywall both contained the carcinogenic mineral, and this has led to asbestos-related lawsuits naming Murco Wall Products, Inc. in hundreds of suits, with more expected to be filed. Recently, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company filed suit in federal court seeking to avoid having to indemnify Murco Wall Products Inc. in asbestos exposure cases. They assert that pollution exclusions in their umbrella and excess policies bar them from having to provide this coverage.
Paint Products Company Turns to Insurer for Mesothelioma Indemnification
Murco Wall Products Inc. was founded in 1971, and in facing mesothelioma claims, the company has acknowledged that some of the joint compound products it produced between 1971 and 1978 contained asbestos. Many companies, including Murco, carry multiple insurance policies to limit their exposure to product liability, and the company has relied on the primary, umbrella, and excess liability coverage it purchased during the 1970s and 1980s to address settlements and jury verdicts.
With multiple outstanding mesothelioma claims and many more pending, the paint products company found that some of its primary insurers became insolvent after issuing policies and never defended against asbestos claims. Berkshire Hathaway, formerly known as Stonewall Insurance Company, was selected to indemnify Murco for defense costs in 17 pending asbestos suits across Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, and Texas, while other pending suits were tendered to other insurers.
Berkshire Hathaway Seeks Court’s Help in Evading Mesothelioma Insurance Liability
In a complaint for declaratory judgment filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Berkshire Hathaway is arguing against indemnifying its former client against mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease claims. The company asserts that the claims stem from illnesses caused by the “discharge, dispersal, release or escape of irritants or contaminants,” and that this triggers their policy’s pollution exclusion clause.
The insurer is seeking clarification from the court on “the appropriate allocation methodology applicable to determine the obligations of multiple insurers” when multiple policies are triggered by mesothelioma claims. The case highlights the complexity of asbestos exposure cases and shows that the consequences of the use of the toxic mineral have financial and legal consequences that go beyond the victims seeking justice from negligent manufacturers. The impact also extends to multiple insurers.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you’ll quickly learn that there are many layers to seeking help. For experienced assistance, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.
Terri Oppenheimer
Writer
Clinton Mora is a reporter for Trending Insurance News. He has previously worked for the Forbes. As a contributor to Trending Insurance News, Clinton covers emerging a wide range of property and casualty insurance related stories.