Insurers win big time in TCPA Suit: Business entities have no privacy interests; any property damage from a TCPA violation is expected.

 

Judge Lefkow  from the federal district court, Northern District of Illinois, held in Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Eclipse Manufacturing Co., No. 06 C 4946 (June 13, 2011) (Dkt. # 367), that business entities have no right of privacy.   Thus any TCPA claims asserted by business entities, as the class members, against a defendant will not implicate the “personal and advertising injury” coverage of the defendant’s CGL policy.   When a business entity receives an unwanted advertisement via fax, only its property interests (in the paper, ink and fax machine) are affected.    However, the sender of the faxes anticipates that the recipient’s paper and toner will be used.  Thus any property damage to the plaintiff class is expected.   Accordingly, coverage is also foreclosed under the property damage liability coverage. 

 

The implications of Judge Lefkow’s decision could be far reaching for those insurers whose policies do not contain TCPA exclusions.  Fax advertisements are often directed to business entities, rather than individuals.  If the plaintiff class members are not clearly identified as business entities, Judge Lefkow’s ruling will likely impact only the duty to indemnify not the duty to defend. Indeed Judge Lefkow allowed discovery to proceed on the issue of how many fax numbers on the leads list belonged to individuals not associated with a business entity so as to assess if any indemnity sums might be owed by the insurers.  

Horizontal Exhaustion: A Shallow Victory for the Excess Insurer Where the Underlying Limits Cannot Be Stacked

By 2004, more than 24,000 claimants had filed asbestos bodily injury suits against Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation (“Kaiser”),  as a result of their exposure to Kaiser’s asbestos products. Kaiser exercised its right to select a single primary insurer to respond to the entire loss –the Truck CGL policy issued in 1974 with limits of $500,000 per occurrence. The claim of each asbestos bodily injury claimant was deemed to have been caused by a separate and distinct “occurrence”within the meaning of the Truck policies.  By October 2004, Truck’s indemnity payments for asbestos bodily injury claims exceeded $50 million and included at least 39 claims that resulted in payments in excess of $500,000. 

Kaiser looked to ISCOP, its excess insurer above the 1974 Truck policy, to respond to the indemnity payments in excess of $500,000.   ISCOP balked, claiming that under the principles of horizonal exhaustion, it should not have to respond until all underlying primary policies had been exhausted. Those policies included not only the 1974 Truck policy, but also the other primary policies issued by Truck between 1964-1983, the primary policies issued by Fireman’s Fund (for policy periods from at least 1947 to December 1964), Home Indemnity (for 1983-1985), and National Union (for 1985-1987).  The  California Court of Appeal in Kaiser Cement v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pa, B222310 (filed June 3, 2011) [PDF] [DOC]  agreed that horizontal exhaustion should apply with respect to ISCOP’s coverage obligations as under ISCOPS’s policy language, ICSOP is excess to allvalid and collectible primary insurance, not just the primary insurance in the selected 1974 policy year.    But that was only a fleeting victory for the excess insurer, as the Court also ruled that the underlying Truck CGL policies could not be stacked such that Kaiser could recover multiple policy limits for a single occurrence.    

Continue Reading...