805 F. Supp. 2d 370
N.D. Ohio2011Background
- LuK Clutch seeks declaratory judgment on coverage under four MTD-insured policies for asbestos-related bodily injuries.
- Two 1985 policies (INA and INA Ohio) and two 1986 policies (INA and INA Ohio) each have $5.5M per occurrence and $6M annual aggregate limits.
- LuK Clutch is defendant in over 750 asbestos-related personal injury claims; LuK manufactured asbestos-containing clutch components.
- MTD and the insurers argue a single occurrence; LuK contends multiple occurrences, preserving coverage.
- Court proceedings include cross-motions for summary judgment on occurrence, noncumulation, and combined single limit provisions.
- Court overall held there are multiple occurrences and total combined single-limit liability capped at $12M across all four policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of occurrences under the policies | LuK Clutch: multiple occurrences | Defendants: single occurrence | Multiple occurrences |
| Effect of noncumulation of liability for same occurrence | Not crucial if multiple occurrences | Noncumulation applies to same occurrence | Not resolved due to finding of multiple occurrences |
| Effect of combined single limit provisions across 1985/1986 policies | Total coverage $24M | Limits cap per occurrence/aggregate across policies | Total coverage limited to $12M across all four policies |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 1990) (interpretation of insurance contracts; plain language control when unambiguous)
- Sharonville v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2006) (contract interpretation and presumption of coverage when not clearly excluded)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eyster, 189 Ohio App.3d 640 (Ohio Ct.App. 2010) (policy interpretation framework under Ohio law)
- Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 445 F.Supp.2d 827 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (distinguishing single vs multiple occurrences based on facts and policy language)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. ACE INA Holdings Inc., 175 Ohio App.3d 266 (Ohio Ct.App. 2007) (persuasive Ohio appellate reasoning on occurrence issues)