United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was not enough that the insured intentionally installed asbestos; the insured must have actually intended or expected the resulting damage in order for recovery to be excluded
• holding that the costs of removing asbestos constituted an occurrence
• noting that the duty to defend arises when a “theory of recovery alleges potential coverage”
• holding that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured under a CGL policy that defined “property damage” as physical injury, when asbestos-containing products manufactured by the insured continuously emitted toxic fibers into the air, creating a safety hazard
• holding “asbestos fiber contamination constitutes physical injury to tangible property, i.e., the buildings and their contents”
• noting that in a declaratory action, courts in Illinois will find a duty to defend even if only one theory alleged in the underlying complaint is potentially within the policy’s coverage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).