The Ohio Supreme Court is currently considering whether insurers are obliged to indemnify Sherwin-Williams Co., the paint manufacturer which, along with others, was found liable in a $409 million public nuisance case over lead paint. Lawyers on both sides have expressed concerns over the potential wider implications of the forthcoming decision.
Earlier this week, the
Ohio Supreme Court listened to appeals made by some underwriters at Lloyd’s of London. This followed the denial of summary judgment to the insurers by Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals. The state appellate court, in its 2-1 majority verdict, held that Sherwin-Williams’ commercial general liability policies, which cover “damages” for specific property damage and bodily harm that the insured neither anticipated nor wished for, might potentially cover underlying public nuisance accusations brought forward by Californian public bodies.
Sherilyn Pastor, an insurance recovery partner at McCarter & English based in Newark, New Jersey, who authored the amicus brief on behalf of the Product Liability Council and the National Association of Manufacturers, commented: “My amici clients, who are manufacturers, are concerned about whether manufacturers will receive the tort liability insurance coverage that they paid a considerable premium for and that they expected.”
Sherilyn Pastor’s statement reveals a prevailing concern within the manufacturing industry over the wider implications of the Ohio Supreme Court’s impending ruling which may impact commercial insurance coverage capacities.
For detailed information about these court proceedings and its implications, you can read the article here.