I was able to spend a few days in sunny Arizona for the 2016 ABA Section of Litigation - Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Conference. It was great to meet up with so many longtime friends and make some new connections as well.
Among the sessions I found interesting was one that included insights from a colleague of mine. Elizabeth Hanke, KCIC Vice President, spoke on the panel “Where the Math Meets the Law: Valuing State Law on Allocation and Related Issues”. She was joined by insurance coverage lawyers Kami E. Quinn of Gilbert LLP and William Um of Kilpatrick Townsend, as well as Stephanie Sciullo, In-House Counsel for MSA The Safety Company.
The panel’s objectives were to demonstrate some of the hidden complexities in allocation issues and provide some practical tips on how to leverage those complexities to the benefit of clients.
The Law and Past Decisions
The initial focus was on the law and past decisions that are used to prepare models of allocation results. The panelists pointed out that the expertise of courts lies in interpreting contractual language and prescribing overarching rules. However, specific applications of math and potential variables that arise under each of these allocation scenarios are not generally an easy subject to translate into legal briefs or opinions. Thus, even in cases where the courts are very specific in their language, sometimes new questions arise even as others are answered.
The panel looked at a few sample formulations of allocation scenarios from around the country and considered what must be resolved before these methodologies can genuinely answer the question, “How much do they owe?”
The panel briefly discussed three different pro-rata allocation methodologies:
Time on the risk to available coverage (State v. Continental Ins. Co., 55 Ca.4th 186, 199 (2012))
Time on the risk strict pro-rata (Boston Gas Company v. Century Indem. Co., 708 F.3d 254, 258 (1st Cir. 2013))
Time and limits (Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Admiral Ins Co., 154 N. J. 312 (1998))
Questions That Arise
While the abovementioned decisions are clear in many areas, they do not address some basic questions that arise in real-life situations.
While these are things we deal with and model on a regular basis at KCIC, it was fun for me to listen to the panel and get very excited about the myriad of options available. The lawyers in the group were enthusiastic about the interpretation of the decisions and the policy language, while being more than happy to turn the implementation of the math involved over to an expert, like Elizabeth, from KCIC.
Never miss a post. Get Risky Business tips and insights delivered right to your inbox.
Almost time...stop by Table 43 and say hi! pic.twitter.com/pGDTSZLx7X
Didn't catch our webinar on our Bankruptcy Evidence Verification (BEV) tool? Here's a recap. Learn why we created o… https://t.co/NpQElYHPhn
Our data shows that mesothelioma filings seem to be trending down, albeit very slowly. However, many asbestos defen… https://t.co/eQk3dWVYQU
You have thousands of cases and many stakeholders needing to access, update, share, and store the same data. That's… https://t.co/02vBnt0p6u
Last Feb., we wrote about the Maryland asbestos docket and how a recent case that ruled proper application of the S… https://t.co/2Nh7CvabA4
We wish everyone a safe and joyful holiday season! pic.twitter.com/Z79A5DRusD
Managing product liabilities often means breaking complex scenarios into smaller components that can be easily understood by all parties. That’s precisely what Nancy Gutzler excels at doing.Learn More About Nancy