8718-8719. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, plf-res, v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., def, COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY defap — Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP, New York (Catherine B. Altier of counsel), for Columbia Casualty Company and Continental Casualty Company, ap — Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York (Edward Fogarty, Jr., and Brian M. Reid of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Argonaut Insurance Company, ap — Proskauer Rose LLP, Chicago, IL (Steven R. Gilford of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 4, 2011, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment striking defendant Argonaut Insurance Company’s defense that there should be no insurance coverage because plaintiff expected or intended the bodily injury claims that resulted from exposure to its asbestos products, and denied Argonaut’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff met its burden of establishing that the damages at issue were the result of an “occurrence” and thus that defendant’s policy provided coverage (see Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 98 NY2d 208, 220 [2002]). Indeed, the record supports plaintiff’s contention that, although it was aware of some risk involved in the utilization of asbestos, at all times relevant to this appeal, it believed that its asbestos products could be used safely under the right conditions. Plaintiff also offered, as further proof of any lack of intent, evidence that it published regulatory information in trade periodicals and provided information regarding the dangers of asbestos, as well as guidance concerning its proper usage, to its clients and potential customers (see Santoro ex rel. Santoro v. Donnelly, 340 F Supp 2d 464, 486 [SD NY 2004] [New York law presumes that users will heed warnings provided with a product]). In addition, plaintiff presented evidence that, during the relevant time period, the federal government shared plaintiff’s belief that asbestos could be used safely and, to that end, promulgated regulations designed to control, monitor and record asbestos usage — but, importantly, did not ban it.
