National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Coverage, Bad Faith Litigation

Thorpe Insulation Company was a distributor and installer of asbestos insulation products. Thorpe was sued in thousands of personal injury lawsuits. Thorpe’s insurance policies covered both products/completed operations claims (“products claims”) and non-products claims (“operations claims”). All of its policies’ aggregate limits applied to products claims, but not to operations claims.

In 1978, Thorpe began tendering the asbestos lawsuits to its primary insurers. In 1984, Thorpe and ten of its primary insurers entered into a Claim Handling and Settlement Agreement (the “1984 Agreement”). The stated purpose of the 1984 Agreement was to “clarify among” the parties to the agreement “the apportionment of defense and indemnification of Thorpe[.]” The 1984 Agreement provided, among other things, that it should not be construed “as a policy interpretation, and shall not be used in any Court … to interpret the obligations under general liability or other policies” and was “without prejudice to later assertion by any such parties of claims against each other … pursuant to the several reservations of rights … contained in this Agreement.” 

Thorpe’s primary insurers charged all settlement payments against the policies’ aggregate limits, treating the claims as products claims. As the primary policies exhausted, Thorpe began tendering claims to its first level excess insurers. In 1998, seven of Thorpe’s first level excess insurers entered into an Interim Excess Insurance Claims Handling Agreement (the “1998 Agreement”). The stated purpose and terms of the 1998 Agreement were similar to those of the 1984 Agreement. The 1998 Agreement also considered an excess insurer’s policy to be implicated when the underlying primary policy is “contend[ed to] have been exhausted.” Thorpe was not a party to the 1998 Agreement, but received a copy and advised its first level excess layer insurers that it reserved all rights under their policies.  

Thorpe’s first level (and upper level) excess insurers charged payments under their policies against aggregate limits, again treating all claims as products claims. When Thorpe had nearly exhausted all of its $180 million in aggregate limits, it sued its insurers seeking a declaration that the insurers still owed defense and indemnity in connection with claims that Thorpe now contended were operations claims and not subject to aggregate limits.

The insurers argued that by accepting payment of the policies’ aggregate limits on a layer-by-layer basis over several decades, Thorpe understood that all of the underlying claims were products claims under the terms of the policies. Thorpe filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the parties’ post-policy course of performance. The trial court granted the motion on two grounds: (1) course of performance evidence is only relevant if it predates a controversy and the 1984 Agreement indicated the existence of a controversy, and (2) such evidence is relevant only if it sheds light on the intent of the parties at the time of contracting and the individuals who negotiated the subject policies were not the same as those who performed under the policies.

The insurers filed a petition for writ of mandate. The court of appeal issued an order to show cause to consider whether the trial court erred in concluding the policies’ claims handling history was irrelevant to the issue of policy interpretation.  

Preliminarily, the appellate court concluded that course of performance evidence is generally admissible to interpret insurance policies, even standard form insurance policies. The court also concluded the admissibility of course of performance evidence does not require the individual performing under the contract to be the individual who negotiated the contract. 

However, the appellate court held course of performance evidence is only relevant to the issue of contract interpretation when the performance is attributable to the parties’ understanding of the contract. The court determined that in the case before it, the 1984 and 1998 Agreements, not the policies, governed the bulk of the parties’ performance. Among other things, the court found particularly relevant the fact that Thorpe obtained excess coverage proceeds because the insurers to the 1998 Agreement had agreed among themselves to make those payments while reserving rights to subsequently contend the payments were not, in fact, due under their policies. 

The court concluded the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of performance following the 1984 Agreement. But the court left open the possibility that pre-1984 course of performance evidence and course of performance evidence as to excess insurers not parties to the 1998 Agreement could still be admissible.

The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District [Los Angeles]) in 2007 ruled that Truck Insurance Exchange was wrong in asserting that its payment of claims had exhausted its policies’ occurrence limits because, the court held, the occurrence under Truck’s policies was the injurious exposure to asbestos, not the manufacture and distribution of products containing asbestos. London Market Insurers v. Superior Court (Truck Ins. Exchg.) (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 648 (review denied). Truck’s position had been that all asbestos-related claims in any given year arose from a single occurrence because all the claims had the same underlying cause, i.e., “the design, manufacture and distribution by Kaiser and its subsidiaries of asbestos-bearing products.” The appellate court also concluded that, given its ruling, it could not make a decision on the number of occurrences based on the record before it and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

On remand, the trial court held that, based on the policies’ language and in light of the stipulated facts, Truck failed to prove the claims could be aggregated and, thus, each claim of asbestos bodily injury was a separate and distinct occurrence under Truck's 19 policies.

Truck’s policies had two different occurrence definitions and aggregating clauses. From 1964 to 1974 the policies had a “one lot” clause which provided that “all damages arising out of one prepared or acquired lot of goods or products” arose out of one occurrence. Truck argued that under this provision, claims from exposure to products produced at the same manufacturing facility should be deemed one occurrence. Based on the appellate court’s decision, the trial court held the focus had to be on the exposure rather than the manufacturing process. Truck had stipulated that the number of product lines was not known and that individual claims could not be connected with particular product lines. Therefore, Truck failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the “one lot” clause aggregated particular claims.

From 1974 to 1983, the Truck policies had a “premises deemer” clause which provided that exposure to substantially the same general conditions “at or emanating from each premises location” was one occurrence. Truck argued all claims were one occurrence as they arose from exposure to products produced at the same Kaiser manufacturing facility or, alternatively, because them were due to the same corporate decision (or multiple corporate decisions from the same location) to place asbestos in products.  The trial court was not persuaded. Relying on Judge Ira Brown’s decisions from the coordinated asbestos proceedings in 1990, the court held that the premises location in a deemer clause could not refer to the plant from which the products were shipped or distributed since that is not where the exposure to asbestos occurred. Furthermore, Truck stipulated that it could not connect the claimant’s injuries to a particular plant. As to the corporate decision argument, the appellate court already decided that was not the correct focus, since it was not the exposure to asbestos. Besides, there was no evidence of one decision to incorporate asbestos into all Kaiser products.