Page 20 - CLT120919

20 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 NEWS

Connecticut Supreme Court Takes Key
Pro-Policyholder Views on Asbestos Coverage

By Cort T. Malone and Maria Brinkmann

I Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford.
n early October the Connecticut Supreme Court The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the
decided RT Vanderbilt v. Hartford Accident & In- Appellate Court and adopted much of the Appel-
demnity, definitively ruling on three important late Court’s 100-plus-page decision, noting that the
issues regarding insurance coverage for asbestos li- “thorough and well reasoned opinion more than suf-
abilities. Two of those rulings—the adoption of the ficiently addresses these certified issues, and there
“continuous trigger” doctrine and recognition of the is no need for us to repeat the discussion contained
“unavailability rule”—aligned Connecticut with the therein.” The Appellate Court’s robust discussion of
majority of jurisdictions that have considered these these questions, endorsed by the Supreme Court,
issues. The third ruling concerned pollution exclu- offers a rich resource for practitioners confronting
sions. The court held that none of the pollution the more nuanced, unsettled questions in this con-
exclusion clauses in the triggered policies applied so stantly evolving area of law.
as to bar coverage outside the context of “tradition- Plaintiff RT Vanderbilt Company Inc. filed a de-
al” environmental pollution—that is, the exclusion claratory judgment action against several defendant
did not apply to losses stemming from smaller-scale, insurance companies to settle insurance coverage
indoor release of toxic substances stemming from disputes arising from alleged injuries from exposure
ordinary use. to industrial talc containing asbestos that Vanderbilt

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune