One Beacon American Insurance Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp.
276 P.3d 1156
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Insurers One Beacon and Huntsman dispute indemnification under a CGL policy for an asbestos-related progressive disease.
- Death of Edward Whetsell from mesothelioma led to a Texas wrongful-death suit against Huntsman, who absorbed El Paso Products’ business.
- El Paso Products was insured by One Beacon from 1963–1977; coverage later excluded asbestos-related bodily injury after 1986.
- Policy provides bodily injury due to an occurrence, with no explicit choice-of-law clause; controversy over when bodily injury triggers coverage.
- District court used Restatement §188 most-significant-relationship and Texas law, applying the exposure trigger theory; One Beacon challenged both choice-of-law and trigger.
- Court holds Texas has the most significant relationship and applies the exposure trigger theory under Texas law, resulting in Huntsman’s full indemnification by One Beacon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state's law governs the contract interpretation | One Beacon argues Utah law governs | Huntsman argues Texas law governs | Texas law governs under §188 analysis. |
| Which trigger theory applies to bodily injury under Texas law | One Beacon supports continuous/exposure theories | Huntsman supports exposure theory | Texas law requires the exposure trigger theory for bodily injury in progressive diseases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C.Cir.1981) (interpreting progressive disease trigger concepts (influence on bodily-injury trigger interpretations))
- Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir.1980) (ambiguous policy language in progressive disease context; multiple trigger theories considered)
- Azrock Indus. Inc. v. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 239 (5th Cir.2000) (recognizes multiple trigger theories; discusses ambiguity and interpretation in progressive diseases)
- Pilgrim Enterprises, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 24 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.App.2000) (applies exposure theory to progressive or related contexts in Texas")
- Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex.2008) (Texas Supreme Court addressing exposure vs continuous trigger; clarifies bodily-injury context)
- Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 901 (5th Cir.2008) (overruled Azrock regarding property damage; discussed bodily injury caveats; exposure theory context clarified)
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 931 P.2d 127 (Utah 1997) (principles on choice of law in contract-based insurance disputes; not determinative on trigger here)
- Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 580 F. Supp. 2d 678 (N.D. Ill.2008) (place of performance in insurance contracts and related conflicts)