Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,400+ case briefs...

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company

Supreme Court of Connecticut
765 A.2d 891 (2001)


Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan) (plaintiff) insured employee-healthcare plans for manufacturers and distributors of asbestos and products containing asbestos. During the 1930s, Metropolitan, through its assistant medical director Dr. Anthony Lanza, engaged in medical research and generated reports about asbestos. From 1970 onward, Metropolitan was named as defendant in asbestos lawsuits. Those lawsuits alleged that Metropolitan had a duty to warn about the health risks of asbestos exposure. The lawsuits argued that as a result of Dr. Lanza’s research, Metropolitan should have known about asbestos-related health risks. The complainants in the asbestos lawsuits alleged that they suffered injuries due to asbestos exposure. Metropolitan spent hundreds of millions of dollars defending the lawsuits. Metropolitan had primary, umbrella, and first-layer excess comprehensive general-liability policies with Travelers. During this same period, Travelers and other insurers (defendants) sold excess-liability insurance policies to Metropolitan. The excess-liability policies provided coverage only after the primary and umbrella policies were exhausted. The primary and umbrella policies were exhausted when the costs of defending asbestos claims had exceeded $25 million per occurrence. The primary and umbrella policies grouped all damages “arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions” into one occurrence. Occurrence was not defined. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that Metropolitan’s failure to warn was not a single occurrence. Instead, the court concluded that each claimant’s exposure to asbestos was a separate occurrence. Metropolitan appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 373,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,400 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial