Scott Seaman Discusses Connecticut Appeals Court Allocation Ruling in Asbestos Case
In The News | 1 min read
Mar 8, 2017
Hinshaw attorney Scott M. Seaman, a Chicago-based partner and co-chair of the firm's national Insurance Services Practice Group, discussed Monday's Connecticut Appeals Court ruling in R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al. with Jeff Sistrunk of Law360. In the case, the court ruled as a matter of first impression that state law permits an “unavailability of insurance” rule, which establishes that a policyholder is not liable for a prorated share of defense and indemnity costs for periods when insurance for a certain risk was unavailable in the marketplace.
Seaman said the panel’s rationale for absolving the policyholder of responsibility for uninsured periods is the same reasoning articulated by insureds in seeking an “all sums” allocation, under which the policyholder can hold the insurers in any triggered period liable for an entire loss up to the policy limits. Courts that have adopted a pro rata allocation standard, including the Connecticut Supreme Court, have already rejected such arguments, he said. "The ‘unavailability’ argument is nothing more than a second bite at the allocation apple that should be foreclosed," said Seaman. "Even the opinion identifies moral hazards and perverse consequences regarding purchase and nonpurchase of insurance and continued manufacturing of defective products."
Seaman added that an unavailability rule needlessly adds an extra layer of complexity to proceedings to determine the proper allocation of costs from asbestos claims. "Adding unavailability into the allocation equation presents the very problems of increasing the complexity of a coverage action, as well as costs, to the parties and consumption of judicial resources that this court sought to avoid by applying a continuous trigger and avoiding a trial on asbestos and medical issues," he said.
Finally, Seaman noted that the massive 161-page opinion suggests the Connecticut appellate court realizes the Connecticut Supreme Court ultimately will have an opportunity to consider the issues.
Read the full article (subscription required)
"Conn. Allocation Ruling May Swell Insurers' Asbestos Burden" was published by Law360, March 7, 2017.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Related Locations
Featured Insights

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Mar 13, 2026
DOJ Settlement with Car Retailer Highlights SCRA Repossession Risks

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Mar 11, 2026
Compliance Considerations for GDPR Consent in Biotech Clinical Research

Press Release
Mar 4, 2026
Marcia Mueller Named the 2026 Mentorship Award Winner by YWCA Northwestern Illinois

Press Release
Mar 3, 2026
Hinshaw Announces New Administrative Leadership Appointments

In The News
Feb 27, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Examine Implications for Nursing Homes of New Illinois Aid-in-Dying Law

In The News
Feb 24, 2026
Lucy Wang Authors Law360 “Expert Analysis” on Why Attorney Civility Means More in 2026

Press Release
Feb 13, 2026
Hinshaw Team Wins Appeal in Criminal Indictment of Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly

Press Release
Feb 10, 2026
Hinshaw Trial Team Secures $0 Defense Verdict in $15 Million Auto Accident Trial

Press Release
Feb 5, 2026
Hinshaw Legal Team Secures Directed Verdict in Florida Equine Fraud Case

Press Release
Feb 4, 2026
Hinshaw Celebrates 17 Consecutive Years of Being Named an Equality 100 Award Winner

![[Video] New Regulatory Priorities Under Mayor Mamdani’s NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection](/a/web/oHiTWa7kRy3Ht1brq6k4BT/bkMx39/new-york-city-skyline.jpg)
