Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Third Circuit Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Insurance Policy

Written by: Adrian K. Cousens on August 02, 2017 | Category: Blog | Tags: ,

In a closely watched decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a decision of an Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court finding ambiguity in an excess insurance policy exclusion, relieving Travelers Insurance of a $36 million indemnity obligation. See Gen. Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co, 855 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2017).

At the heart of the case was litigation involving General Refractories Co. (GRC), a manufacturer and supplier of products that contained asbestos sold back as far as 1978. Over 30,000 lawsuits were brought against GRC and its various primary liability insurance policies were exhausted by 2002. GRC then tendered the claims to a series of excess insurers, including Appellant Travelers Surety and Casualty Company. The other excess carriers settled out of the litigation, leaving Travelers to be the only remaining insurer in the case. At the heart of the argument, Travelers claimed that it was not obligated to indemnify GRC in the remaining asbestos lawsuits, per language of an exclusion in the policy that provided:

“It is agreed that this policy does not apply to EXCESS NET LOSS arising out of asbestos, including but not limited to bodily injury arising out of asbestosis or related diseases or to property damage.”

GRC argued that an ambiguity existed in the exclusion because ‘asbestos’ could be interpreted as both the raw material of asbestos or as asbestos containing products. GRC’s suits involved asbestos containing products and not the “mining, milling, producing, processing, or manufacturing the raw mineral”.

The District Court agreed with GRC and found that Travelers could not meet its burden to show that GRC’s narrow interpretation was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court ruled the exclusion unenforceable and ruled that Travelers must cover $21 million of GRC’s losses plus over $15 million in prejudgment interest.

The Third Circuit reversed the lower Court unanimously, ruling that the term “arising out of,” when used in a Pennsylvania insurance exclusion, unambiguously requires “but for” causation. The Court noted that “The provision plainly encompasses losses that would not have occurred but for asbestos or which are causally connected to asbestos. Pennsylvania law permits no other interpretation.”


Attorney Adrian K. Cousens is an experienced litigator, representing insurance companies in insurance defense cases involving a wide range of matters involving commercial and individual insureds.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog