Cached/copied 03-28-09
for original link click
here -
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=4154&a=a&bt=terrorist
Business Insurance
Port loses claim for
asbestos removal
Issue - May 14, 2001
NEWARK-Asbestos abatement costs are not covered by an
all-risks
property policy unless an actual asbestos release or an imminent
release leaves a property useless or uninhabitable, a federal judge has
ruled.
U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month
threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final
claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage
of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World
Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority
properties.
Granting summary judgment for the insurers in his May
1 ruling, Judge Bissell found among other things that the costs of
removing asbestos do not constitute "physical loss or damage"
triggering coverage under the Port Authority's all-risk policies.
A Port Authority spokesman said the agency is reviewing the
ruling and has not decided whether to appeal.
"We
have noted, however, that the judge himself observed that there was no
controlling case with respect to the question before the court," the
spokesman said.
The ruling ends the trial phase of a decade-long
court battle that began when the Port Authority sued its property
insurers in 1991 in a New Jersey state court.
The suit sought
recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos
from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade
Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the
abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.
Later moved to
the U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark, the suit named all of
the agency's property insurers from 1969 until 1991. Among them were
Affiliated FM Insurance Co., Allianz Insurance Co., units of American
International Group Inc., Federal Insurance Co., Hartford Accident
& Indemnity Co. and dozens of Lloyd's of London syndicates and
London market insurers.
Judge Bissell last year granted summary
judgment to insurers on policies issued prior to 1978, finding that the
Port Authority breached policy provisions requiring timely notice of
its claims.
The ruling removed pre-1978 policies from the case
and left only policies in force from 1978 to 1991. In his ruling
earlier this month, Judge Bissell found that the agency also has no
coverage for its asbestos costs under the second group of policies.
The
Port Authority had claimed that its manuscript all-risks property
policies cover asbestos abatement costs at hundreds of locations within
its facilities, including 780 locations it identified within the World
Trade Center and 302 locations at Newark International Airport,
according to the ruling.
The agency's claims related to locations
that generally fell into three categories, Judge Bissell found. These
were numerous locations where the mere presence of asbestos allegedly
constituted physical damage under the policies; 801 locations where the
risk of asbestos releases constituted damage; and 281 locations where
actual releases constituted damage.
After reviewing submissions
by both sides, however, Judge Bissell found no evidence that asbestos
had posed a health risk to anyone at the Port Authority's properties.
Thousands
of air samples taken at the Newark Airport buildings, for example,
never revealed any instances of asbestos fibers exceeding safety
limits, the judge noted, adding that the Port Authority had completed
abatement projects at only a third of the airport locations for which
it had claimed losses.
The agency also repeatedly vouched for the
safety of its properties, according to the opinion. At one point, the
director of the Port Authority's asbestos control program wrote in a
memo to employees that "air monitoring tests are conducted to ensure
the air quality in specific areas containing asbestos is within the
required federal standards. All air monitoring tests taken so far at
the (facility) indicate air quality well within federal standards."
Even
the February 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center did not
create an asbestos problem: Air sampling that began within hours of the
explosion showed some higher-than-normal asbestos readings but none
that exceeded levels considered safe under federal guidelines, the
ruling notes.
In addition, Judge Bissell concluded that some Port
Authority abatement work at the World Trade Center was motivated less
by health concerns than by the desire to avert rent revenue losses
linked to the presence of asbestos in office space.
"The express
purpose of (a Port Authority abatement project) was to stem lost
revenue resulting from a loss of new tenants who wished to rebuild
office space to their desired specifications but who would not do so
unless (asbestos-containing materials) were abated," Judge Bissell
found.
Whether insurers are liable for the Port Authority's costs
depends on whether "asbestos-related conditions constitute physical
damage" under the policies, a question for which the judge found "no
controlling case" to serve as precedent.
"To be sure, there are
circumstances in which the actual release of asbestos from building
materials can constitute physical damage or loss. When this has been
the case, however, the courts have described the level of asbestos
release...in terms requiring the magnitude...to be relatively
substantial," the judge said.
To constitute physical loss or
damage, the judge ruled that the Port Authority's claims must involve
"an actual release of asbestos fibers...that results in contamination
of the property such that its function is nearly eliminated or
destroyed, or is rendered useless or uninhabitable" or an imminent
threat of an asbestos release of the same magnitude.
None of the agency's claims met this standard, Judge Bissell
concluded.
Many
of the claims, he noted, arise from the presence of asbestos
"unaccompanied by even the suggestion of actual release or imminent
threat of release," he wrote.
Out of 103 locations where the Port
Authority offered proof of a threatened release of asbestos, the agency
had undertaken abatement at only 13, the judge noted, which he said
suggests that the Port Authority itself was not treating the threat
seriously.
In addition, of 71 locations where the agency offered
proof of actual asbestos releases, 45 occurred after the expiration of
the last of the property policies at issue, the opinion said.
"Its
proofs falling short, plaintiff is left with nothing more than
speculative and conclusory allegations," Judge Bissell wrote. "The Port
Authority's arguments that its abatement program is necessary for
protection of human health misses the point. The issue here is
first-party property coverage under the policy that plaintiff has
purchased, coverage which plaintiff has failed to establish."
Port
Authority of New York & New Jersey et al. vs. Affiliated FM
Insurance Co. et al.; U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey; No. 91-cv-2907.
|