Category: Blog

BY: KRISTEN DRAKE

On October 1, 2023, Maryland’s Child Victims Act took effect. Here, PolicyFind explains what this new law means for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, defendant institutions, and what role Insurance Archaeology can (or should) play.

Over the course of the past several years, PolicyFind has closely monitored and reported on the wave of ‘reviver statutes’ sweeping the nation. The ‘reviver statute’ or ‘look-back window’ is legislation that temporarily lifts the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims to be filed in civil court. These reviver statutes have been enacted for finite terms in more than a dozen states, including New York, New Jersey, California, and Arkansas.

To be clear, Maryland’s Child Victims Act is not a look-back window. This law eliminates the statute of limitations permanently; and Maryland is not alone in enacting this type of legislation, Vermont and Maine have similarly removed their respective statutes of limitations for civil matters. These measures allow adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file a civil lawsuit, regardless of when the abuse occurred.

As adult survivors file civil lawsuits, they often name not only the perpetrator but also the associated educational or religious institutions as defendants. According to marylandmatters.org, “Maryland Child Victims Act caps liability for public entities at $890,000 and increases the liability limit to $1.5 million for claims against private institutions for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering.” So, once a judgment is derived, where does the money come from?

With public schools and churches already in need of monetary support, without having new civil lawsuits against them, how will these, and other struggling non-profit, youth-based organizations, handle meeting these obligations? One option is insurance. This insurance is likely not the defendant organization’s current coverage, rather historical occurrence-based general liability coverage – the kind that was in place when the alleged wrongdoing occurred. This type of insurance is the same kind that would have responded to slip and fall accidents. Because of its wide range of coverage, it left a footprint. The tracing of that footprint is also known as Insurance Archaeology.

Another option for defendant institutions are those actions outlined within the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s press release, issued days before the new law in Maryland took effect. That statement outlined the organization’s pre-emptive move of filing for Chapter 11 reorganization.

Over the past several years, PolicyFind has penned many articles extolling the virtues of defendant institutions that have engaged an Insurance Archaeologist to locate and bring to bear evidence of these valuable historical occurrence-based policies. That’s because, day in and day out, PolicyFind works directly with churches, schools, non-profits, and youth-based organizations, throughout the country, to identify and reconstruct historical liability insurance programs to respond to these types of complaints.

It has often been said, and it’s true, these oft-discarded old policies are worth more than their weight in gold. PolicyFind works with defendant institutions to locate evidence of these historical insurance policies because, once identified, they provide funding to answer these complaints spanning back four, five, or six decades.

Insurance Archaeology is the practice of locating and retrieving proof of the existence, terms, conditions, and limits of lost or destroyed insurance policies. Under current and future reviver statutes and emerging new laws across the country, historical CGL policies issued to businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations, are the first line of assets to be explored to pay for claims against them.

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about how to discover and reconstruct your organization’s historical liability insurance portfolio.

BY: KRISTEN DRAKE

Over the past several years, many school districts, youth-based organizations, religious institutions, and municipalities have enlisted PolicyFind’s Insurance Archaeologists to locate their lost liability policies. This sharp increase in the demand for insurance archaeology correlates with individual states passing legislation that expands the statute of limitations for filing civil lawsuits related to child sexual abuse claims. 

In recent years, more than a dozen states nationwide have opened reviver statute ‘windows’ – either for a finite term (1-2 years, generally) or permanently. These windows allow survivors of sexual abuse to file previously time-barred civil lawsuits against perpetrators and associated organizations decades after the alleged acts occurred.

PolicyFind has conducted Insurance Archaeology for defendant organizations throughout the country and has been engaged most frequently in (but not limited to) California, New York, and New Jersey. However, the landscape of reviver statutes seems ever-evolving.

MARYLAND’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT OF 2023

Most recently, in April, Maryland’s governor signed the Child Victims Act of 2023, eliminating the statute of limitations and allowing adult survivors of child sexual abuse to file a civil lawsuit, regardless of when the abuse happened. Maryland’s lookback window opens on October 1, 2023, and, similarly to Vermont and Maine, it will be open permanently.  

CALIFORNIA’S AB 452

In California, just over a month after the Child Victims Act reviver statute ended in December of 2022, lawmakers introduced AB 452, the “Justice for Survivors Act”. While the Child Victims Act window was open for a 3-year period, if passed, AB 452 would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. The prior version would have opened a permanent lookback window. AB 452 passed the Assembly on May 25, 2023, and is now in the Senate for review.

ARKANSAS’ SB 676

In February, SB 676, the “Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act” became law in Arkansas. The law opened a two-year window allowing survivors aged 55 and younger to file civil lawsuits against alleged perpetrators or responsible organizations. This window closes on January 31, 2024.

These matters are sensitive and undoubtedly full of complexities for defendant institutions. When a school district, a religious institution, or a non-profit receives a civil complaint of this nature, they will likely begin to assemble a team to assist them. The team will probably be anchored by the attorney representing the defendant’s institution. An Insurance Archaeologist needs to have a place of prominence on the team, too. Insurance Archeologists are the experts at bringing to light those often long buried or lost general liability insurance policies issued to the school or non-profit. These old General Liability policies can respond today and provide the funds needed to answer revived claims of abuse – even if the allegations span back to the 1960s. While these old policies can provide monetary relief, the policyholder must first prove the policy existed. This can be problematic, especially when the policies have long ago been discarded. 

Insurance Archeology is the practice of locating and retrieving proof of the existence, terms, conditions, and limits of lost or destroyed insurance policies. Under current and future reviver statutes and emerging new laws across the country, historical CGL policies issued to businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations, are the first line of assets to be explored to pay for claims against them.

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about how to discover and reconstruct your organization’s historical liability insurance portfolio.

BY: KRISTEN DRAKE

On May 24, 2022, New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, signed the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) into law.  The ASA creates a one-year ‘Lookback Window’ which opened on November 24, 2022, to allow survivors who were adults (18 and older) at the time they were sexually abused and assaulted to sue their abusers – regardless of when the offenses occurred.

In 2019, the state of New York enacted the Child Victims Act (CVA) which opened a ‘Lookback Window’ to commence civil actions.  The CVA was extended another year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the window closed in August of 2021, nearly 11,000 lawsuits had been filed. During the CVA lookback window, countless churches, schools, foster care agencies, and youth-based organizations were obliged to respond to the alleged abuses. An important differentiation between the CVA and the ASA, is the age of the survivor when the sexual abuse or assault occurred, although both fall under the broader category of reviver statutes. Prior to the ASA, reviver statutes focused primarily on abuses against children.  With this new law, it’s likely that different types of organizations will face allegations dating back decades, because the survivors were 18 and older when the sexual assault or abuses happened. This expansion may include accusations made regarding assaults at colleges, in the workplace, and/or health care facility abuses – to name a few.

DECADES-OLD OCCURRENCE-BASED GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES CAN HELP
When states enact these lookback windows, removing or reducing the statute of limitations for sexual abuse civil suits, organizations that were proximal to alleged abuses can get caught in the crossfire between plaintiffs and alleged offenders. Occurrence-based Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued during the policy periods in which the alleged abuse occurred can respond to these new claims – even if the alleged abuse happened in the 1960s.

DEFENDANT ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD CONSIDER INSURANCE ARCHEOLOGY
As more organizations are compelled to identify and locate their decades-old liability policies to help pay damages, they are oftentimes disheartened to learn how difficult it can be. Since the time of interest in reviver statute claims is oftentimes at least 40 years ago, many records could be lost, destroyed by fire or flood, or purposely purged.

Upon receiving notice that a lawsuit has been filed against them under a reviver statute, defendant organizations should contact their attorneys, who typically suggest contact with their current insurance agents and brokers. Because of standard document retention practices, these companies quickly learn their current agent/broker has no information dating back decades. It’s at this point, or perhaps following a fruitless internal archive search, that defendant organizations should consider Insurance Archeology.

Insurance Archeology is the practice of locating and retrieving proof of the existence, terms, conditions, and limits of lost or destroyed insurance policies. PolicyFind’s expertise is finding and bringing to light old insurance coverage for our clients. Under current and future reviver statutes across the country, historical CGL policies issued to businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations, are the first line of assets to be explored to pay for claims against them.

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about your organization’s historical liability insurance portfolio.

LEARN HOW CASE LAW MAY BE FAVORABLE FOR POLICYHOLDERS FACING ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY IN NEW MEXICO

BY: DRU CARLISLE

Case law could be poised to become more favorable for Policyholders in New Mexico who are facing challenges related to Environmental Liability. In nearly every state in the country (with Indiana as an exception), courts have agreed that the Absolute Pollution Exclusion bars coverage for addressing environmental contamination. Typically, this would mean that most general liability policies written after 1985 would not provide a defense to the Policyholder related to environmental cleanup.

In Indiana, a ruling in 2010 determined that the Absolute Pollution Exclusion was considered “ambiguous,” making it possible for many Policyholders to use their insurance policies up until around the mid-2000s.

WHAT COULD THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

Hypothetically, let’s say that you’ve been operating a drycleaning business since 1988 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. You’ve recently discovered, after attempting to sell your property and performing a Phase II, as required by the lender, that there is perchloroethylene contamination within the groundwater. Previously, the General Liability policies that you procured for your business would not provide coverage for remediation because of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion. However, if this ruling were to move forward as expected, you could now have applicable insurance coverage.

Even though this ruling could open a larger opportunity for policyholders to seek coverage from their past insurers on more recent policies, the policies that would be responding to these types of claims could have been issued more than 20 years ago, or earlier. If you don’t know anything about your old occurrence-based general liability policies, contacting an Insurance Archeologist is the best way to find them and bring them to bear.

For over 20 years, PolicyFind has helped business owners and property owners alike, as they navigate expensive environmental contamination cleanup efforts, by finding lost or misplaced General Liability insurance policies that can respond to such claims. PolicyFind will continue to watch this ruling unfold in New Mexico and will provide updates as they arise.

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about how we can help you find evidence of your organization’s historical coverage.

 

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO HAS FOUND THE TERM “POLLUTANTS” TO BE AMBIGUOUS IN CERTAIN GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES ISSUED IN THAT STATE. 

BY: DAVID A. O’NEILL, JD

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has ruled that this ambiguity renders the absolute pollution exclusions featured in these policies ineffective, reinstating coverage. That is the takeaway from the Court’s recent Memorandum Opinion supporting its summary judgment rulings in the case of Chisolm’s Village Plaza, LLC v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Co., et al., 2022 WL 3369202.

The City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County had filed complaints against a shopping mall and dry cleaner, among others, seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for responses to releases and expected releases of hazardous substances at the Griggs & Walnut Superfund Site. The New Mexico Environment Department had detected PCE contamination in four city water wells. The resulting lawsuit was a diversity case in which the U.S. District Court was required to apply New Mexico law. Reviewing New Mexico court decisions, the District Court determined that this was a case of first impression. While New Mexico’s Supreme Court had determined that the qualified pollution exclusion was ambiguous in United Nuclear, 285 P.3d 644 (2012), no ruling had been made by that court regarding the absolute pollution exclusion. Further, while the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled on the absolute pollution exclusion, these were rulings based on Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah law, not New Mexico law.

Encountering this lack of precedent relating to the absolute pollution exclusion, the District Court conducted an exhaustive review of various state supreme court decisions to determine how the Supreme Court of New Mexico would rule. In doing so, it grouped the decisions into three “camps”: (1) the literal approach, (2) the situational approach, and (3) the Indiana approach. The literal camp was comprised of opinions that apply the exclusion as “clear and unmistakable.” The situational camp was comprised of opinions that apply the exclusion only in situations of “traditional environmental pollution.” The Indiana camp was comprised of the Supreme Court of Indiana’s ruling in the case styled State Auto v. Flexdar 964 N.E.2d at 850-851.

The District Court predicted that the New Mexico Supreme Court would find enough similarity in Flexdar’s and United Nuclear’s approach to ambiguity to construe the absolute and qualified pollution exclusions in the same manner as Indiana has construed them. Like Indiana, the District Court expects that New Mexico will “require that the insurer specify what falls within its pollution exclusion.” It will find Flexdar persuasive because “its approach is the least tolerant of contractual ambiguity and provides the most protections for the insured.”

To learn more about what this could mean for those facing environmental liability in New Mexico, read U.S. District Court Finds Absolute Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous; What This Could Mean for Drycleaners/Industrial Sites in New Mexico.

An ineffective absolute pollution exclusion in New Mexico may be expected to create exposure for insurers under standard general liability policies issued to commercial businesses from 1985 through the present.

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about how we can help you find evidence of your organization’s historical coverage.

 

THE PROCESS OF REGULATING PFAS CONTAMINATION IS HEATING UP

BY KRISTEN DRAKE 

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are part of a very broad chemical group that have found their way into commercial and industrial use due to their unique chemical properties that repel oil and water and resist temperature, chemicals, and fire. This means PFAS are everywhere. Also, PFAS are known as “forever chemicals”, which means concerns surrounding PFAS will not be going away anytime soon. Federal and state regulators are looking closely at PFAS exposure, and several studies are being conducted that will result in additional regulations.

As an emergent contaminant resistant to degradation and requiring substantial remediation, PFAS are currently the subject of increased scrutiny by environmental regulators, private party plaintiffs, manufacturers, and the insurance industry. Currently, the federal government has no enforceable environmental regulations of any kind that address PFAS chemicals, but recently, the federal government has issued interim health advisories about the human health effects of PFAS chemicals. As the federal government narrows in on acceptable screening levels, the EPA is preparing to propose new mandatory standards for PFAS chemicals in the fall.

Several states aren’t waiting for federal regulations concerning PFAS in the environment and are pushing forward with demands to sample environmental media for PFAS at some active remediation sites. Now, is the time to address PFAS exposures and seek out coverage.

HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE SHOULD BE TENDERED TO PAY FOR PFAS INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP, REMEDIATION, AND LEGAL DEFENSE

Those who used or interacted with PFAS during their business operations can face a variety of exposures due to PFAS including product liability, bodily injury, and environmental cleanup claims. Insureds should be ready to use their commercial general liability (CGL) policies written prior to 1986 to pay for the investigation, remediation, and legal defense of PFAS.

Three reasons why PFAS related damages fit into the pollutant pre-exclusion:

1. Older CGL policies typically apply to an “occurrence” rather than “claims-made basis”, which means the policies in place when there was property damage during the policy period should continue to apply, even if the liability does not appear until decades later. So, for substances now seen as “emerging contaminants” that have been in the soil, groundwater, or otherwise since the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, CGL policies from those years can pay for environmental investigation, cleanup, and legal defense. This means older CGL policies insure business owners against claims for property damage like contamination and bodily injury. Similar claims involving PFAS should be no different.

2. Older CGL policies, prior to 1986, did not include the absolute pollution exclusion (including PFAS). This means older CGL policies can cover long-tail claims, such as environmental, investigation, cleanup, and legal counsel fees. Again, similar claims involving PFAS should be no different.

3. Applicable CGL insurance policies never expire. PFAS claims don’t change this fact.

If you feel that you or your business may gain liability from the formal regulation of PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances, contact PolicyFind as soon as possible to get your historical CGL portfolio in order.

PolicyFind is watching the development of insurance coverage related matters regarding PFAS and very closely, not only for bodily injury claims but also for property damage claims related to the investigation and cleanup of subsurface contamination. Significant rulings and opinions will be shared in future blog posts. For questions or more information, please contact us.

 

LAW ELIMINATES STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT FOR ONE YEAR 

BY: KRISTEN DRAKE

On May 24, 2022, New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, signed the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) into law.  The ASA creates a one-year ‘Lookback Window’ which opens on November 24, 2022, to allow survivors who were adults (18 and older) at the time they were sexually abused and assaulted to sue their abusers – regardless of when the offenses occurred. 

In 2019, the state of New York enacted the Child Victims Act (CVA) which opened a ‘Lookback Window’ to commence civil actions.  The CVA was extended another year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the window closed in August of 2021, nearly 11,000 lawsuits had been filed. During the CVA lookback window, countless churches, schools, foster care agencies, and youth-based organizations were obliged to respond to the alleged abuses. An important differentiation between the CVA and the ASA, is the age of the survivor when the sexual abuse or assault occurred, although both fall under the broader category of reviver statutes. Prior to the ASA, reviver statutes focused primarily on abuses against children.  With this new law, it’s likely that different types of organizations will face allegations dating back decades, because the survivors were 18 and older when the sexual assault or abuses happened. This expansion may include accusations made regarding assaults at colleges, in the workplace, and/or health care facility abuses – to name a few. 

DECADES-OLD OCCURRENCE-BASED GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES CAN HELP
When states enact these lookback windows, removing or reducing the statute of limitations for sexual abuse civil suits, organizations that were proximal to alleged abuses can get caught in the crossfire between plaintiffs and alleged offenders. Occurrence-based Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued during the policy periods in which the alleged abuse occurred can respond to these new claims – even if the alleged abuse happened in the 1960s.   

DEFENDANT ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD CONSIDER INSURANCE ARCHEOLOGY
As more organizations are compelled to identify and locate their decades-old liability policies to help pay damages, they are oftentimes disheartened to learn how difficult it can be. Since the time of interest in reviver statute claims is oftentimes at least 40 years ago, many records could be lost, destroyed by fire or flood, or purposely purged.   

Upon receiving notice that a lawsuit has been filed against them under a reviver statute, defendant organizations should contact their attorneys, who typically suggest contact with their current insurance agents and brokers. Because of standard document retention practices, these companies quickly learn their current agent/broker has no information dating back decades. It’s at this point or perhaps following a fruitless internal archive search, that defendant organizations should consider Insurance Archeology.

Insurance Archeology is the practice of locating and retrieving proof of the existence, terms, conditions, and limits of lost or destroyed insurance policies. PolicyFind’s expertise is finding and bringing to light old insurance coverage for our clients. Under current and future reviver statutes across the country, historical CGL policies issued to businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations, are the first line of assets to be explored to pay for claims against them. 

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about your organization’s historical liability insurance portfolio. 

---

Kristen Drake brings more than a decade of research and managerial experience in broadcast journalism to the field of insurance archeology. Since joining the PolicyFind team in 2015, Mrs. Drake has successfully documented liability insurance programs on behalf of municipalities, manufacturers and dry cleaners. She continues to translate her expertise in source procurement and digital fact-finding, performing insurance research activities at a very high level, providing on-time execution of contracted performance goals.

ON MARCH 24, 2022, THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST DEPARTMENT, ISSUED A NOTEWORTHY RULING IN CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, ET AL. V. NL INDUSTRIES, INC., 2022 NY SLIP OP 02056.

BY: JOSEPH  M. JUNFOLA, CPCU

The case is noteworthy for a few reasons in terms of the interpretation of insurance coverage and issues like the fortuity doctrine, expected/intended consequences, legal damages versus equitable relief, and the definitions of bodily injury and property damage. 

Another notable aspect of this case, and one that should never be underestimated, is the asset value of historical insurance policies. In this case, this value is in the tens of millions of dollars. 

But first, a little background. 

LEAD ABATEMENT AND INSURANCE COVERAGE IN CALIFORNIA 

In March 2000, Santa Clara County filed a class-action lawsuit against manufacturers and promoters of Dutch Boy lead-based paints. NL Industries, a defendant, allegedly promoted the use of interior residential lead paint with knowledge of the danger to children. 

Eleven years later, the case evolved into the Government Plaintiffs (including Santa Clara County) filing a fourth amended complaint asserting a claim for representative public nuisance on behalf of the People. Tried in Summer, 2013, the Court found in favor of the People and, in March 2014 filed an amended statement of that ruling requiring the defendants to pay $1.15 billion into an abatement fund. 

After appeal from the defendants and remand, in July 2019 the Court approved a $305 million settlement. NL’s share was $101.6 million and, as of that date, had already paid $25 million. 

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiffs must, and did, establish the defendants’ actual knowledge of the hazards of lead paint, including childhood lead poisoning, to sustain a claim for representative public nuisance. And the defendants knew this as early as the 1920s.  

As to the remedy, the abatement of the representative public nuisance alleged on behalf of the People is equitable in nature and does not provide for a damages remedy. The defendants argued, unsuccessfully, that the abatement was “a thinly disguised damages award.”  Had the defendants succeeded, the claim would likely have been defeated since only equitable relief is available for a representative public nuisance claim. 

This is significant because equitable relief is arguably not covered in a CGL policy, one of the arguments that the insurers made in the subsequent coverage action. 

LEAD ABATEMENT AND INSURANCE COVERAGE IN NEW YORK 

The carriers pursued a coverage action in New York and in late December 2020, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al. v. NL Industries, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 34331 (U), applying New York law, ruled against the carriers’ position that NL’s liability in the California action was not covered. 

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the carriers argued: 

1. Because of NL’s knowledge of the danger of lead paints, it was held liable for the intentional and affirmative promotion of hazardous lead paint for interior residential use, giving way to expected or intended consequences and, therefore, is not covered. 
2. Only “damages” or “damages and expenses” are covered. The abatement remedy was neither, as it constituted equitable relief only as the California court explicitly ruled. 
3. Even if the abatement remedy could somehow be damages, it must be “because of” property damage or bodily injury as provided for in the policies and neither were “elements of the claim.” 

The first argument failed. The Court ruled that, as to the expected/intended argument, in New York there is a distinction between knowledge of the risk of hazardous consequences as to one’s behavior and the intention to cause harm. The carriers failed to make a prima facie case that NL’s action was uninsurable. Furthermore, as to intent, the carriers failed to demonstrate that the alternative to expected/intended, i.e., the codified fortuity doctrine, precluded coverage. 

The second argument failed as well. While the abatement remedy did not constitute damages in California, but instead was an equitable remedy, the New York court found for insurance coverage purposes, “that the abatement fund was not strictly intended to prevent harm, but was monies paid to the government, depleted by its ongoing efforts to remediate the longstanding contamination of houses and buildings by lead paint in California. It, therefore, qualifies as damages under the applicable policies.” 

Finally, the New York Court ruled that while it agreed that property damage and bodily injury are not elements of the People’s representative public nuisance claim, there was a “connection between the lead poison injuries to the children residing in the buildings containing the lead paints promoted by NL and the property damage to those buildings as a result of NL’s promotion of lead paint.” 

The carriers’ motion for summary judgment was denied and they appealed, bringing us to March 24, 2022, and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department’s ruling that the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion. Noteworthy is the Appellate Division’s concurrence that despite the ruling by the California court that abatement payments were not damages, they, “had a compensatory effect, which qualified them as damages under the applicable law and insurance policies.” 

THE VALUE OF OLD POLICIES 

On July 24, 2019, the Superior Court issued an Order and Judgment approving a $305 million settlement, of which NL’s share is $101.6 million, and of which NL had already paid $25 million.  

According to NL, Insurers issued or subscribed to 320 policies for NL between 1949 and 2000. More specifically, “between 1949 and 1997, approximately $1.285 billion (43%) in coverage was bought while NL was headquartered in New York, while approximately $1.690 billion (57%) in coverage was negotiated and delivered to NL at its Texas headquarters.” 

In a footnote, it is pointed out that NL believes it purchased policies from the insurers as far back as 1946 but has not located them. Given the ages of the policies, NL was fortunate to have found the policies it did.  The value of old policies as financial sources in long-tail liability claims cannot be stressed enough.  

Contact PolicyFind today to learn more about how we can help you find evidence of your organization’s historical coverage. 

---

Joseph Junfola’s insurance claim career spans 43+ years with experience managing, directly or in a supervisory capacity, commercial and personal lines of insurance claims. For the last 29 years, he has specialized in commercial long-term exposure or continuous property damage, bodily injury and personal injury claims on a national basis primarily involving construction defect, environmental, toxic tort, product liability, and design professional liability claims. He frequently collaborates with underwriting professionals to draft and redraft policy language. His experience also includes construction accident claims, particularly third-party-over actions in New York.