R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 333 Conn. 281

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment in a complex insurance coverage dispute arising from asbestos-related claims involving talc mined and sold by Vanderbilt. The court upheld the continuous-trigger theory, the unavailability-of-insurance exception to pro rata allocation, the exclusion of certain expert testimony, and the conclusion that pollution exclusions did not bar the claims. It also held that occupational disease exclusions applied to claims by nonemployees who developed occupational diseases while using Vanderbilt’s talc in the course of employment.

Holdings

1. The Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's adoption of a continuous-trigger theory for asbestos-related disease claims, recognition of an unavailability-of-insurance exception to the time-on-the-risk rule, preclusion of expert testimony concerning the timing of asbestos-related bodily injury, and conclusion that the pollution exclusions did not bar the asbestos-related claims at issue.
2. Occupational-disease exclusions in the Lloyd's and Pacific excess policies unambiguously excluded coverage for occupational-disease claims brought by both Vanderbilt employees and nonemployees who developed an occupational disease while using Vanderbilt's talc in the course of working for other employers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Connecticut law permits a continuous-trigger theory of coverage for long-latency asbestos-related disease claims.
2. Whether Connecticut law recognizes an unavailability-of-insurance exception to the time-on-the-risk rule for pro rata allocation of defense and indemnity costs.
3. Whether expert testimony concerning medical science and the timing of asbestos-related bodily injury was properly precluded.
4. Whether pollution exclusions applied to asbestos exposure in indoor working environments or only to traditional environmental pollution.
5. Whether occupational-disease exclusions in excess policies barred claims by nonemployees who developed an occupational disease while using Vanderbilt's talc in the course of working for other employers.

Disposition

affirmed