Cases

A court of the Northern District of Texas resolved motions for summary judgment filed by excess insurers in a suit seeking contribution for coverage in underlying lawsuits alleging asbestos injury and exposure, holding that the policies’ language regarding an occurrence supports application of an “exposure trigger theory” and that the parties had contracted around the usual rule that the duty to indemnify depends on facts “actually established” (effectively replacing that standard with the eight-corners rule), but finding that only one of the three underlying suits alleged exposure to asbestos during the policy periods.