Insurers eye ways around trigger rule. (surplus-lines contract liability insurance writers compromised by regulation): An article from: National ... & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management

This digital document is an article from National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management, published by The National Underwriter Company on February 17, 1997. The length of the article is 820 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the supplier: The endorsements offered by surplus-lines contract liability writers may not be sufficient to mitigate the effects of a California Supreme Court ruling concerning third-party liability policies. In 1995, the Court ruled in the Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Insurance Co. that policies are duty-to-defend in third-party liability cases involving a damage-causing occurrence that continues for a number of years. The ruling has negatively impacted contract liability writers, who have seen an increase in construction defect lawsuits since the ruling.

Citation Details
Title: Insurers eye ways around trigger rule. (surplus-lines contract liability insurance writers compromised by regulation)
Author: Dan Lonkevich
Publication:National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management (Magazine/Journal)
Date: February 17, 1997
Publisher: The National Underwriter Company
Issue: n7 Page: p9(2)

Distributed by Thomson Gale