Two insurance companies’ failure to consider negotiating a settlement in the face of a potential billion-dollar loss on behalf of an insured should be sufficient justification for the insured to settle its claims for $80 million without the consent of the carriers, an attorney representing Babcock & Wilcox argued last week before the state Supreme Court.
K&L Gates attorney Thomas More Reiter, who represented Babcock & Wilcox before the justices in Pittsburgh in Babcock & Wilcox v. American Nuclear Insurers, argued that his client’s decision to settle radiation exposure claims for $80 million after the carriers refused to engage in settlement negotiations and contested coverage in the event of a verdict was justified under both the fair and reasonable and bad-faith tests, such that the insurance carriers should not be able to disclaim coverage.
This content has been archived.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]
