Reinsurance Focus

Lexington Insurance Company participated in a tower of coverage for Dresser Industries, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products that was forced into bankruptcy by the multi-billion dollar exposure it faced arising from product liability litigation against it. In the context of the bankruptcy proceeding, Dresser commenced an insurance coverage action against its various liability insurers. The several insurers named as defendants, including Lexington, ultimately participated in a global settlement, at a figure determined by an outside consultant hired by the group of settling insurers. For its part, Lexington utilized its own “bathtub” method of allocation to determine which of its policies would contribute to its share of the settlement, and in what amounts. By this method, each of its exposed policies were layered (as though in a bathtub) according to their layers of coverage, and those that were “underwater” given the settlement structure were tendered to their limits. Based on this analysis, Lexington paid out the limits under two particular $10,000,000 policies. As a participating reinsurer on these two policies, Clearwater denied Lexington’s claim under the theory that Lexington’s use of the “bathtub” methodology was contrary to the recommendations of the outside consultant that determined the ultimate global settlement. Lexington sued and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue. The Court found in favor of Lexington under the “follow the fortunes” doctrine, noting that there was nothing inherently unreasonable about Lexington’s chosen allocation method. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., No. 09-0234C (Mass. Super. Ct. July 26, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.