KeySpan, Honeywell and the Primacy of Choice of Law in Environmental Insurance Coverage Disputes

Q3 Environmental Science

Environmental Claims Journal Pub Date : 2018-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10406026.2018.1511095

Robert D. Chesler

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Recent New York and New Jersey cases have taken different positions on allocating environmental loss that takes place over many years. Thus, choice of law and forum become important issues for obtaining a particular result. The allocation of loss among insurers, and back to the policyholder for certain years, is at stake. This article explores the findings in two most recent examples of 2018 cases, KeySpan v. Munich Reinsurance and Continental Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc.

查看原文本刊更多论文

KeySpan、Honeywell与环境保险纠纷中法律选择的优先性

纽约和新泽西最近的案例对多年来发生的环境损失的分配采取了不同的立场。因此，法律和诉讼地的选择成为取得特定结果的重要问题。保险公司之间的损失分配，以及特定年份的保单持有人的损失分配，正处于危险之中。本文探讨了2018年两个最新案例的调查结果，即KeySpan诉慕尼黑再保险公司和大陆保险公司诉霍尼韦尔国际公司。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Environmental Claims Journal Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Environmental Claims Journal is a quarterly journal that focuses on the many types of claims and liabilities that result from environmental exposures. The ECJ considers environmental claims under older business insurance policies, coverage and claims under more recent environmental insurance policies, as well as toxic tort claims. Exposures and claims from all environmental media are considered: air, drinking water, groundwater, soil, chemicals in commerce and naturally occurring chemicals. The journal also considers the laws, regulations, and case law that form the basis for claims. The journal would be of interest to environmental and insurance attorneys, insurance professionals, claims professionals, and environmental consultants.