Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Caution
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 402·45 Cal. App. 4th 1·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690·96 Daily Journal DAR 5048·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3058
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1996Docket Nos. A049419, A049631, A049654, A049659, A049661, A049663, A049664, A049665, A049666, A049667, A049668, A049669, A049670, A049671, A049672, A049808, A049875California36,941 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dossee, J.

This appeal raises a number of complex questions concerning insurance coverage for claims of asbestos-related bodily injuries and property damage. In the proceedings below, separate declaratory relief actions and related cross-actions involving three asbestos manufacturers—Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Fibreboard Corporation, and GAF Corporation —and their various insurance carriers were coordinated and tried in six separate phases over a five-year period.

On appeal, the parties submitted briefs on three major “Issue Groups,” and our opinion follows that organization. First, in the unpublished portion of the opinion, we discuss the issues of Issue Group I pertaining to a lost insurance policy. In Issue Group II we discuss the issues concerning the bodily injury claims: trigger and scope of coverage; the application of the phrase “neither expected nor intended”; the liability of premerger insurers; the effect of the Wellington Agreement. In Issue Group III, we discuss the issues surrounding the property damage claims: coverage for property damage; trigger and scope of coverage; the duties to defend and indemnify; and, in the unpublished portion of the opinion, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.