Environmental and latent injury claims are often referred to as “long-tailed” claims. This is because the damages arising from these exposures can extend for several decades. A pollution claim, for example, could be the result of property unwittingly damaged by pollutants over a period of years. Likewise, an asbestos exposure claim usually extends over multiple years, from the date of first exposure until the date the asbestos-related disease is diagnosed. These types of claims are most often filed well after the initial damage or in the case of asbestos, after the date of first exposure.

Most companies did not retain insurance policy records after 5 years. Since most pollution and latent injury claims can go back as far as 20 years or more, this creates a coverage nightmare for a company.

Fortunately, the insurance professionals at ETLS have the knowledge, experience, and the resources to help you obtain coverage in situations where coverage was purchased, but the policies were either lost or destroyed. ETLS also has expertise in locating additional coverage, either direct policies or secondary evidence, and knows what to do with such information.

Let’s assume for example that an asbestos claim has been filed against your company by a plaintiff alleging an exposure period that pre-dates your company’s existence. In many jurisdictions, your company could be held legally responsible for damages for the plaintiff’s entire exposure period. ETLS has the expertise to identify other possible defendants and their respective insurance carriers which could make a difference in your company’s ability to survive potential economic hardship. Have you thought about coverage you might have under someone else’s policies? We think of this and much more.

Example:

While conducting a document review for a client, ETLS personnel found documentation that suggested that a vendor was supposed to make the ETLS client an additional insured on its general liability policies. Further investigation revealed that the ETLS client had not been made an additional insured but, instead, the ETLS client was made an additional named insured on the vendor’s policy. Further, the endorsement making the change did not contain any qualifying or limiting language. Thus, the ETLS client enjoyed the same rights and privileges on the vendor’s policy as the vendor itself. This provided the ETLS client an additional avenue to pay for its defense and increase its available indemnity limits.