Maryland’s highest court adopts pro rata allocation for asbestos-related bodily injury claims under liability policies. The court began by explaining that injury spanning many years often implicates multiple policies and, therefore, implicates a continuous or injury-in-fact trigger under Maryland law. Adopting the reasoning of
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 802 A.2d 1070 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)
, app. dismissed, 821 A.2d 369 (Md. 2003), it rejected joint and several allocation because of its “poor fit” under the policy language:
[T]he pro rata approach is unmistakably consistent with the language of standard CGL policies. Indeed, “there is no logic to support the notion that one single insurance policy among 20 or 30 years worth of policies could be expected to be held liable for the entire time period.” …Consistent with the policy language limiting coverage to that which occurs “during the policy period,” the timing of the injury di
The State of Play In Pennsylvania
According to the UPenn Covid Tracker, approximately 180 COVID-19-related coverage suits have been brought in Pennsylvania courts. As is the case nationally, most of the Pennsylvania cases are pending in federal courts. Also, according to the UPenn Covid Tracker, there have been 12) “merits” decisions by Pennsylvania courts’ rulings on insurer motions to dismiss. Nine of these decisions have been issued by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, (1) by the Western District of Pennsylvania and (2) by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
Decisions by Pennsylvania State Courts (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas)
Ridley Park Fitness v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.