The Ohio Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over whether insurers have an obligation to indemnify Sherwin-Williams Co., following a substantial legal ruling in California which found the company liable for $409 million in lead paint abatements. This legal action was initiated by California public entities as far back as 2000, and these bodies argued that Sherwin-Williams’ commercial general liability policies could cover these costs. These policies specifically state that they would cover ‘damages’ for specific property or bodily injury which the insured neither anticipated nor intended. More on this story here.
The insurers’ argument against indemnifying Sherwin-Williams came to the Ohio Supreme Court after an appeal by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London. Their appeal came as a response to the Eighth District Court of Appeals denying them summary judgment. The primary crux of the insurers’ argument revolves around whether the lead paint damages were indeed ‘unexpected’ or ‘unintended’, as the product is widely known as hazardous. Sherwin-Williams’ Jones Day counsel was consequently subjected to rigorous questioning regarding why the company should be entitled to indemnification for injuries caused by their lead paint.