As the Ohio Supreme Court mulls whether insurers have a duty to indemnify Sherwin-Williams Co., after the paint maker and others were held liable in a $409 million public nuisance case over lead paint, attorneys on both sides warn of the potential broader implications of the forthcoming decision.
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on appeal by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London after the state’s Eighth District Court of Appeals denied summary judgment to the insurers. In a 2-1 majority, the state appellate court held that Sherwin-Williams’ commercial general liability policies, which cover “damages” for specific property and bodily injury that the insured neither expected nor intended, could cover underlying public-nuisance claims brought by California public entities.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
