Insurance Law Commons^™

The Insurance Aftermath Of September 11: Myriad Claims, Multiple Lines, Arguments Over Ocurrence Counting, War Risk Exclusions, The Future Of Terrorism Coverage, And New Issues Of Government Role, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

September 11, 2001, is an unforgettable date for many reasons. In addition to its political, social, and historical importance, it may mark a watershed of insurance history as well. The value of the insurance losses due to the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers is estimated to total at least $35 billion and perhaps $75 billion. In addition, most of the people killed by terrorism were covered by life insurance. Many business operations were affected, invoking possible business interruption coverage. The airplanes that became weapons of destruction carried passengers whose estates are likely to press claims against the …

Judge-Made Insurance That Was Not On The Menu: Schmidt V. Smith And The Confluence Of Text, Expectation, And Public Policy In The Realm Of Employment Practices Liability, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In Schmidt v. Smith, the New Jersey Supreme Court caught more than a few observers by surprise. New Jersey courts have generally issued opinions regarded as pro-claimant and pro-policyholders. But everyone's taste for recompense and coverage has limits. In Schmidt, the court exceeded those limits for many observers by holding that despite what it regarded as clear contract language in an exclusion, an insurer providing Employers’ Liability (“EL”) coverage along with Workers' Compensation (“WC”) insurance for the employer was required to provide coverage in a case of blatant sexual harassment bordering on criminal assault. In doing so, the Schmidt court, …

Unreason In Action: A Case Study In The Wrong Approach To Construing The Liability Insurance Pollution Exclusion, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

For more than twenty-five years, a significant component of the scholarly commentary on insurance law has focused on the so-called “reasonable expectations doctrine” enunciated by then-Professor (now Judge) Robert Keeton in his justly celebrated 1970 article. The reasonable expectations principle made a seemingly sudden emergence with the appearance of Keeton's article and has held particular attraction to academics while simultaneously prompting resistance from elements of the bench and bar, and particularly from the insurance industry. The doctrine's life to date can be described as one of early growth followed by subsequent retreat and dilution, with continuing controversy.

However, despite the …