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”.
The Montana Supreme Court Tuesday affirmed a lower court judgment that a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. unit must pay $97.8 million in asbestos claims and other costs to the state under a comprehensive general liability policy it issued for 1973 through 1975.
The 69-page, 6-1 majority ruling in National Indemnity Co. V. State of Montana essentially affirms a March 2018 ruling against the Berkshire Hathaway unit by a lower court in Bozeman.
The court held in the earlier ruling that the state knew about hazardous conditions, injuries and deaths related to a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, since 1942.
The mine, which later became a Superfund site, was owned and operated by W.R. Grace and Co. and its predecessors. The insurance-related dispute concerned underlying litigation against the state related to its regulatory role.
In August 2019, the lower court followed up its ruling with a judgment holding National Indemnity was obliged to pay the state $97.8 million.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, this consists of $26.8 million for the remainder of a 2009 global settlement, giving credit to National Indemnity for $16.1 million it had contributed, and $21.3 million in accompanying prejudgment interest; $29.6 million to indemnify the state for settlements paid to claimants exposed during the policy period and $4.9 million in accompanying prejudgment interest; $6.9 million for the state’s attorneys fees and costs paid for defending the claims between 2005 and 2019; $4.9 million for prejudgment interest on the state’s claim defense costs; and $3.6 million for the state’s attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending the litigation through March 2019.
The court remanded two issues to the lower court: the number of occurrences under the policy and the resulting calculation of policy limits, and the eligibility of claimants exposed to asbestos only prior to the policy period.
A dissenting opinion said National had not breached its duty to defend the state.
Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.