Advertisement

May 23, 2013

From Trash to Cash - General Liability Policies Purchased Before Mid-1980s May be Able to be Sold Back.

Risk Management - RIMS

Understandably, most companies do not view legacy environmental cleanup liabilities as a way to generate revenue. But any organization that purchased general liability insurance policies before the mid-1980s may be able to sell back coverage for substantial amounts of cash. 

This new possibility is rooted in the fact that insurers historically balked at paying environmental cleanup costs, leaving companies with little choice but to sue their insurers for coverage. The litigation was expensive and the results were unpredictable. But the legal framework surrounding these claims has matured in recent decades-favorably for policyholders-and uncertainty has diminished, prompting many companies to forego litigation and pursue negotiated resolutions.

For some, the results have been  highly profitable. Depending on the coverage and the nature of their environmental exposures, some have recovered tens of millions of dollars from insurers. But despite the obvious benefits of monetizing environmental insurance claims, some companies resist doing so. Part of this is because, beginning in the mid-1980s, coverage for pollution-related liabilities was excluded from general liability policies, meaning that companies with only newer policies probably do not qualify for a payout.

Other popular reasons do not hold much water, however. The following represent the seven most common misconceptions held by those who do not pursue a settlement.

1. We have no claim because the old liability policies are missing.

Many older policies that are assumed to be lost forever are later located through "insurance archeology," which involves conducting a review of the company's records, contacting the company's old brokers and reviewing government archives. And sometimes, insurers produce missing policies during the course of settlement negotiations.

2. Our claims have no value since we have not spent millions on cleanup.

While the costs that a company has already incurred are an important component of its claim, the risks presented by sites where industrial operations occurred, but contamination has yet to be discovered, are another key factor.

3. We cannot afford to pursue insurance recovery at this time.

Compared to litigation, a company's cost of presenting its claims for settlement are generally modest. Moreover, many experienced insurance counsel appreciate that these claims have real value and are willing to tailor their fees to accommodate the company. Pursuing a settlement also avoids a large demand on employees' time.

4. We should hold onto policies in case exposures expand over time.

The value of the typical company's insurance is decreasing steadily over time as a result of the continuing insolvencies of its insurers. It is not unusual for a company to find that half of the insurers that issued its old liability policies are now insolvent.

5. The recovery investigation may reveal additional contamination.

Investigation of environmental liabilities for insurance recovery should be limited to information already in the company's possession and should not require any further review. Not only does this limit the company's exposure for additional cleanup costs, but it diminishes the costs of the insurance recovery process.

6. Presenting claims to insurers will increase the risk of regulatory and third party claims.

In a settlement negotiation setting, the company's claims can-and should-be presented to the insurers only pursuant to strict confidentiality agreements, in which all information provided to the insurers is subject to federal and state protections.  

7. Projecting future liability will create regulatory reporting requirements.

By their very nature, future cost projections prepared for purposes of monetizing insurance are neither "probable" nor "reasonably estimable" costs for purposes of accounting rules, and therefore do not trigger SEC reporting requirements.

_________

Stephen T. Raptis is of counsel and represents commercial policyholders at the law firm of Gilbert LLP. 

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2013 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Risk Management Magazine  is the premier source of analysis, insight and news for corporate risk managers. RM strives to explore existing and emerging techniques and concepts that address the needs of those who are tasked with protecting the physical, financial, human and intellectual assets of their companies. As the business world and the world at large change with increasing speed, RM keeps its readers informed about new challenges and solutions....

212-286-9364

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.