When litigation involves multiple parties, all of which are big national or international organizations, there is a higher likelihood that something is going to end up in the litigation process. The unfortunate nature of insurance coverage is that companies will try to find little nuances to try to argue their case, or will add little nuances to make any future case more difficult for opposing parties. One party to a contractual agreement may cite to these nuances to find a loophole to escape from any potential liability and, subsequently, leave someone who believed they had full coverage with nothing. Despite these loophole efforts, a court can still look at the realities of the circumstances and come to real life conclusions to the exclusion of the argument of either party. This is true in the case of Federal Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, when the court ultimately looked at the reality of a contractual agreement and decided that no matter what the terms of the contract were, the whole contract was in regard to a personal injury case.
Our previous blog post discussed this case but a brief summary is as follows:
The case began when Wayne Robinson was unfortunately hurt by an explosion at a chemical plant. The explosion occurred because there were certain chemicals used by the plant that reacted with each other to cause the explosion. One of the defendants in Mr. Robinson’s case was Thomas and Betts Corporation (hereinafter T&B). T&B allegedly manufactured a product that contributed to the explosion that caused Mr. Robinson’s injuries. T&B had liability insurance from both New Hampshire Insurance Co., which was the primary insurance provider, and Federal Insurance Co., which was the secondary, or excess insurance provider. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson settled with T&B.
The interest of discussing policy nuances hinges upon the terms of the agreement were between T&B and Mr. Robinson. In that agreement, T&B would give Mr. Robinson $5 million for bodily injuries and an additional $1.2 million for a potential breach of contract claim another plaintiff may have had against Mr. Robinson. In fact, by settling with T&B, Mr. Robinson was breaching his agreement with the plaintiff company. After Mr. Robinson reached his agreement with T&B the other plaintiff sued Mr. Robinson for breach of contract. This breach of contract was supposed to be covered by his settlement agreement with T&B. However, soon after the settlement, Mr. Robinson received a letter from New Hampshire Co., T&B’s primary insurer, that it was going to cover his $5 million settlement, but would not cover his $1.2 million settlement because it was for a breach of contract and therefore, outside the scope of its policy covering T&B.
As a separate issue, the court discussed whether the New Hampshire policy covered contractual agreements. However, it came to the conclusion that the use of the phrase “legally obligated to pay” rendered the policy to cover tortious actions. However, the court went on to explain that the entire settlement between T&B and Mr. Robinson did in fact relate to and cover the bodily injury claim. The settlement could only cover the bodily injury claim because the only action for which T&B was liable to Mr. Robinson was the bodily injury. Therefore, the settlement could not be for any breach of contract claim.
The $1.2 million settlement was a by-product of T&B inducing Mr. Robinson to settle his bodily injury claim against T&B. The court held that even though this separate amount is categorized as reimbursement for a breach of contract claim, it is still within the bodily injury claim because the settlement was made in consideration for the bodily injury claim. Therefore, because the bodily injury claim was covered by the New Hampshire policy, New Hampshire was liable for the entire settlement. Mr. Robinson received money from Federal, T&B’s secondary insurer, therefore Federal stepped into T&B’s shoes in its claim for reimbursement from New Hampshire. Therefore, New Hampshire owed Federal the money it paid to Mr. Robinson.
Even in cases where a contract defines things in a certain manner or when the law defines different terms, the realities of a contract are the ultimate facts that define a contract. Although, the New Hampshire policy only covered tortious actions and even though the settlement between Mr. Robinson and T&B defined two different amounts, one for bodily injury and the other for a breach of contract, the reality was that both amounts were in consideration for the bodily injury claim and therefore the reality was that New Hampshire owed the entire amount as per its policy with T&B.
Please refer your legal matters to the Berniard Law Firm.