10 janvier 2006 19:33
Dow corning and breast implants
Son, saying your bike didn't grab Joey's ankle doesn't mean we don't have to drive him to the hospital!
Or, in other words, "disavowals of liability do not disembowel coverage," writes Marc Mayerson in his latest post on liability settlements and insurance coverage. My apologies to Mayerson, if this analogy isn't as good as Mayerson's example of Dow Corning and breast implants. He opens:
"Liability insurance policies apply where the insured is liable for bodily injury, property damage, or wrongful acts (depending on the policy). What happens, however, when the policyholder denies that any injury or wrongdoing took place? Does that mean that insurance is not applicable?
"Perhaps the most pointed illustration concerns Dow Corning, which denied that its breast implants caused injury but entered into a major settlement. In its coverage case, its insurers turned around and argued that, because the policies apply to "injury" and because Dow Corning denied there was "injury," the insurers had no obligation (or technically that their policies had not been triggered). The court made short work of this argument ..."
More here.
