Travelers denied that it had a duty to defend Textron in the R.I. Lawsuits. According to Travelers, its duty to defend was not triggered unless the alleged asbestos-related personal injuries had occurred during the policy period.

In response to Travelers' refusal to defend and indemnify, Textron sued.

Textron moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration with respect to Travelers and whether Travelers had a duty to defend it in the R.I. Lawsuits.

Travelers argued that the plain language of its policies required the R.I. Lawsuits to allege personal injuries that occurred during the policy periods, January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1987. Otherwise, according to Travelers, the complaints in those lawsuits fell outside the potential for coverage and Travelers owed Textron no duty to defend.

Conversely, Textron contended that the R.I. Lawsuits' complaints raised the potential for coverage under the policies. According to Textron, Travelers was obligated to defend even if the possibility existed that Travelers ultimately might discover facts proving that the R.I. Lawsuits' plaintiffs had suffered their injuries outside the duration of the policy period.

The Travelers Policies

The insurance policies provided that:

[Travelers] will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . Personal Injury . . . to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence. 

Section 2.2, entitled:

Defense: Settlement, Supplementary Payments 

stated that:

[Travelers] shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured within the United States of America . . . seeking damages on account of such personal injury . . . to which this policy applies, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent. . . . 

A policy that Travelers asserted was representative of the policies in effect from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1972 defined:

personal injury 

as including, among other things:

bodily injury 

and defined:

occurrence 

as:

an accident, event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results, during the policy period, in personal injury or property damage 

The policy also provided that it applied:

only to: Personal Injury . . . which occurs during the policy period anywhere in the world 

A policy that Travelers asserted was representative of the policies in effect from January 1, 1973 to January 1, 1987 defined:

personal injury 

as a:

bodily injury . . . sustained by any person which occurs during the policy period 

and defined:

occurrence 

as:

an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in personal injury or property damage 

The trial court declared that Travelers' duty to defend had been triggered with respect to the R.I. Lawsuits.

In its decision, the trial court found that the complaints in the R.I. Lawsuits alleged bodily injuries that potentially had occurred during Travelers' policy period.

The trial court pointed out that there were no allegations in the R.I. Lawsuits that showed that the injuries alleged had occurred “outside the policy period from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1987.” Moreover, the trial court added, even for those plaintiffs who alleged a specific time period of contracting asbestosis, the potential for coverage was “nevertheless present.”

The trial court observed that such a “potential for coverage” was “all that was needed” to trigger the duty to defend. It added that Travelers' obligation to defend in the R.I. Lawsuits persisted even if there were facts that someday might negate Travelers' ultimate liability to indemnify Textron.

The trial court concluded that “nothing in the complaints” negated Travelers' duty to defend and that they contained factual allegations that “potentially” fell under Travelers' insurance policies – “nothing more” was needed “to trigger the duty to defend.”

The case is Textron, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., Nos. PB-2012-1371, PC-2016-0587 (R.I. Super.Ct. Aug. 10, 2017). Attorneys involved include: For Plaintiff: Wayne E. George, Esq.; Gordon P. Cleary, Esq. For Defendant: Dana M. Horton, Esq.; Steven J. Boyajian, Esq.; John P. Graceffa, Esq.; John H. Bruno II, Esq.