{"id":62,"date":"2012-05-30T20:50:01","date_gmt":"2012-05-31T00:50:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/?p=62"},"modified":"2014-09-05T15:50:18","modified_gmt":"2014-09-05T19:50:18","slug":"do-asbestos-rip-out-claims-and-the-abandoned-materials-policy-exception-neutralize-the-impact-of-the-completed-operations-aggregate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2012\/05\/30\/do-asbestos-rip-out-claims-and-the-abandoned-materials-policy-exception-neutralize-the-impact-of-the-completed-operations-aggregate\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Asbestos Rip-Out Claims And The \u201cAbandoned Materials\u201d Policy Exception Neutralize The Impact of the Completed Operations Aggregate?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In an effort to avoid the impact of the completed operations aggregate limit, policyholder counsel sometimes attempt to characterize claims as (1) rip-out exposures, or (2) as relating to \u201cabandoned or unused materials,\u201d so as to come within a common insurance policy carve-out from the Completed Operations Hazard. Both arguments are a stretch.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>As to \u201crip-out\u201d claims, the argument is that to the extent an asbestos claimant\u2019s injury is due to exposure during rip-out of previously-installed asbestos, not due to exposure during the original installation operations, the claim falls outside the Completed Operations Hazard. It\u2019s an effort to create a new post-operation \u201coperation\u201d exposure and thereby push the claims into later years. Three points in response: (1) the only rip-out claims presenting possible exposure to late-year carriers are ones where the rip-out occurred during the carriers\u2019 actual policy periods, which often raises significant proof problems in the underlying cases; (2) even as to such claims, exposure to rip-out operations involving asbestos previously installed or distributed<em> by the insured<\/em>, as opposed to other installers or suppliers, is a \u201cproducts\u201d claim as to that insured and falls within the products hazard aggregate limit under the policy\u2014that is, where the insured is ripping out the same asbestos insulation it installed at a location years earlier, exposures fall within the Products Hazard because it arises after possession of the product was relinquished to a third party; (3) some policies specifically define completed operations to include subsequent work on a product (<em>e.g.<\/em> rip-out): \u201cOperations which may require further service or maintenance work, or correction, repair or replacement because of any defect or deficiency, but which are otherwise complete shall be deemed completed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The \u201cabandoned or unused materials\u201d issue relates to an exception in the standard ISO Completed Operations Hazard definition: \u201cThe completed operations hazard does not include bodily injury or property damage arising out of . . . (b) the existence of tools, uninstalled equipment or abandoned or unused materials, . . .\u201d Some policyholders argue that asbestos dust remaining in a building after operations are completed constitutes \u201cabandoned or unused material\u201d within Exception (b) and therefore injuries from exposure to this material are not within the Completed Operations Hazard. The argument was raised in the Wallace &amp; Gale appeal, but never addressed by the Fourth Circuit because the insured failed to raise the argument in the trial court. (<em>Wallace &amp; Gale<\/em>, 385 F.3d at 835.) The issue was addressed, however, in <em>National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Porter Hayden Co.<\/em> (D.Md. 2005) 331 B.R. 652, 668 n.21.) There, the court called the policyholder\u2019s argument \u201cnonsensical.\u201d (Id.) Quoting <em>U.S. Sanitary Specialities Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co.<\/em> (7th Cir. 1953) 204 F.2d 774, 777, the Porter Hayden court explained that \u201c\u2019this exception to completed operations refers only to tools, equipment and materials which on completion of an operation <em>should have been removed<\/em> by the assured but which, instead, were abandoned there by the insured and later were instrumental in causing an accident.\u2019\u201d (331 B.R.at 668 n.21) (emphasis by court.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In an effort to avoid the impact of the completed operations aggregate limit, policyholder counsel sometimes attempt to characterize claims as (1) rip-out exposures, or (2) as relating to \u201cabandoned or unused materials,\u201d so as to come within a common insurance policy carve-out from the Completed Operations Hazard. Both arguments are a stretch.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[32,30,34,19,33,31],"ppma_author":[411],"class_list":["post-62","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-aggregate","tag-asbestos","tag-completed-operations","tag-insurance-coverage","tag-paul-killion","tag-wallace-gale"],"authors":[{"term_id":411,"user_id":37,"is_guest":0,"slug":"pjkillion","display_name":"Paul J. Killion","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/08\/killionpaul-125x150.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Killion","first_name":"Paul J.","job_title":"","user_url":"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/pauljkillion.html","description":"Paul Killion is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris and a appellate specialist certified by the State Bar of California. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/pauljkillion.html\">Read Paul's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}