Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Case disputing insurer's arbitration clause in asbestos claim declined

Reprints
Case disputing insurer's arbitration clause in asbestos claim declined

WASHINGTON—The United States Supreme Court won't review an insured's case on whether an insurer can enforce an arbitration clause in an asbestos-related injury claims case.

A federal court of appeals had determined that Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. was not prevented from seeking arbitration under a settlement agreement with George V. Hamilton Inc., a McKees Rocks, Pa.-based commercial installer of industrial insulation.

GVH purchased a liability insurance policy with coverage from 1985 to 1986 from Nationwide, according to court documents. In 1992, GVH entered into a settlement agreement—which included an arbitration clause—with Nationwide and other insurers after receiving asbestos-related injury claims related to products it installed.

Nationwide participated in the agreement until 1996, when it claimed its policy limits had been exhausted.

Nationwide raised the arbitration provision of the settlement agreement in 2007 after GVH filed new asbestos-related claims with Nationwide and other insurers.

A federal district court precluded Nationwide from invoking the clause, since GVH had terminated the agreement in a previous dispute with other insurers.

The Supreme Court refused GVH's petition for writ of certiorari, however, which the company sought after a federal district court of appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, allowing Nationwide to seek arbitration.