Travelers Casualty & Surety Company v. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation of America
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
419 F.3d 181 (2005)
Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (Travelers) (plaintiff) provided primary bodily injury and property-damage insurance, and excess insurance to Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation (OCF). OCF manufactured asbestos. The primary bodily injury policy distinguished between “products” and “non-products” claims. Each “products” claim had an aggregate limit. Once this limit was reached, the claims would be exhausted. “Non-products” claims were individually subject to a cap. Travelers obtained reinsurance certificates from Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation of America (Gerling) (defendant) for some of its excess policies with OCF. These certificates contained “follow the fortune” clauses binding Gerling to any settlements Travelers made within the terms and conditions of its policies and the certificates. OCF was sued for asbestos related injuries. OCF categorized these claims as “products” claims. Once OCF exhausted its products coverage, OCF made claims under its “non-products” coverage. Travelers disputed this coverage. OCF and Travelers arbitrated this dispute. Travelers argued that OCF’s claims arose from a single occurrence. OCF argued that each claim was a separate occurrence. OCF and Travelers settled without an agreement about the proper allocation of occurrences. Travelers allocated the majority of the settlement to a single “non-products” claim. After exhausting this claim, Travelers allocated the remaining amount among its excess policies, including those reinsured by Gerling. Gerling refused to pay because, it claimed, the settlement should have been allocated across multiple claims. Travelers sued Gerling for breach of contract. Gerling moved for summary judgment asking the trial court to determine that Gerling was not required to follow Travelers’ theory of allocation. The trial court granted Gerling’s motion, holding that Gerling was not required to reimburse Travelers under the “follow the fortunes” clause. When OCF and Travelers’ settled, Travelers assented to allocation based on OCF’s per occurrence theory. Travelers appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, C.J.)
What to do next…
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.
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 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.