{"id":2066977,"date":"2023-10-14T02:52:01","date_gmt":"2023-10-14T06:52:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-insurers-asbestos-dispute\/"},"modified":"2023-10-14T03:06:32","modified_gmt":"2023-10-14T07:06:32","slug":"supreme-court-to-review-insurers-asbestos-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-insurers-asbestos-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to review insurer&#8217;s asbestos dispute."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">14<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-to-review-insurers-asbestos-dispute%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2066977&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><blockquote>\n<h2>The Supreme Court\u2063 to \u200dHear Insurer&#8217;s Claim \u200con\u2063 Fraudulent\u200d Asbestos Claims<\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an\u2063 insurer&#8217;s claim that a bankruptcy reorganization \u200dplan fails to protect it from\u2063 fraudulent \u2064claims \u2062related to asbestos exposure cases.<\/p>\n<p>The \u200cappeal comes \u200cafter the U.S. Court of Appeals \u2063for the 4th Circuit held Truck Insurance Exchange Co. \u2064<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-admin-stops-taking-applications-for-student-debt-forgiveness\/\" title=\"Biden Admin Stops Taking Applications for Student Debt Forgiveness\">lacked legal standing<\/a> to object to Kaiser Gypsum&#8217;s Chapter\u200b 11 reorganization \u200dblueprint.<\/p>\n<p>At issue is the &#8220;bankruptcy \u2062standing&#8221; doctrine, which, along with \u200bthe associated &#8220;insurance neutrality&#8221; rule, precludes an\u2063 insurer\u200d from\u200b participating in the bankruptcy unless the insurer can \u200dshow \u200bthat the \u2064plan formally alters \u2064the &#8220;quantum of liability&#8221; under\u200b the insurer&#8217;s contracts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2>Related Stories<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>\n    <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/judge-orders-montana-health-clinic-to-pay-nearly-6-million-over-false-asbestos-claims-5418844?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judge Orders Montana \u2064Health Clinic to Pay\u2063 Nearly $6 Million Over False Asbestos Claims<\/h3>\n<p>    <\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"text-comp-caption\">7\/24\/2023<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n    <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/article\/jjs-own-expert-working-for-fda-found-asbestos-in-baby-powder-3134267?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\"><\/p>\n<h3>J&#038;J&#8217;s Own Expert, Working for FDA, Found Asbestos in Baby Powder<\/h3>\n<p>    <\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"text-comp-caption\">10\/31\/2019<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The insurance neutrality rule prevents the\u200b insurer\u2063 from objecting to a reorganization plan even when,\u200b as in \u200cthis\u2062 case, the \u2062insurer bears near-exclusive financial responsibility for\u2063 the claims under the plan, the insurer&#8217;s petition filed\u200d with the Supreme\u2064 Court states.<\/p>\n<p>The court granted\u2063 the petition for \u2063certiorari, \u2064or review, in the\u200c case of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. \u2064(court file 22-1079)\u200c in an\u2064 unsigned order on Oct. 13. No justices\u2064 dissented. The court gave no reasons for its\u200b decision.<\/p>\n<p>At least\u2064 four of the nine justices must vote for the petition for it\u2062 to advance \u2063to the oral\u200d argument stage. Justice Samuel\u200d Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the \u200bpetition.<\/p>\n<p>Asbestos is\u200b a fire-resistant mineral whose fibers used to be commonly employed in construction and other industries. Although it had\u2062 been used for thousands\u200b of years and\u2064 was once called a &#8220;miracle\u200b mineral,&#8221; a \u2062century ago, it\u200c was discovered that \u2063it can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, \u2062and asbestosis. Over \u200dtime, regulators cracked down on asbestos, and its use is now banned in many industries in much\u2062 of\u2063 the world. The last \u2062asbestos \u200dmine in the United States closed in 2002,\u200c though Russia continues \u2064to mine the mineral.<\/p>\n<figure>\n  <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/example.com\/asbestos-image.jpg\" alt=\"A \u200dsign warns of asbestos danger at a \u200cformer Royal\u200c Mail sorting office \u2064in London, England, on Oct. 11, 2013.\" \/><figcaption>A \u200bsign warns of\u2064 asbestos danger at\u2064 a former Royal Mail sorting office\u2062 in London, England, on Oct. 11, 2013. (Peter Macdiarmid\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Billions of dollars worth of claims related to asbestos-caused\u200d injuries are filed \u200ceach year in the United States.<\/p>\n<div>\n<h2>38,000 Asbestos-Related Lawsuits<\/h2>\n<p>Since 1978,\u2062 the two related companies, Kaiser Gypsum\u2062 and \u200cHanson Permanente Cement\u200b Inc.,\u200b manufactured construction materials containing\u2062 asbestos. Truck\u200c Insurance Exchange is their primary \u2063insurer. They have been named \u200cin \u200cmore\u200b than 38,000\u2063 asbestos-related \u200dlawsuits \u2063nationwide. \u200bThe \u2064companies filed for bankruptcy protection in \u200c2016 with 14,000 claims still outstanding \u200dat\u200b that \u200btime, and \u200dthe possibility of future claims remaining, the 4th \u200bCircuit noted in its decision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The \u2064companies&#8217; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/if-i-get-into-the-race-im-going-to-win-manchin-teases-third-party-run-at-no-labels-event\/\" title=\"Manchin hints at third-party run, confident of victory.\">insurance \u200cpolicy<\/a> requires Truck to defend and pay asbestos-related claims without \u2063an aggregate limit.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;That \u200dmeans Truck is financially responsible for virtually every dollar owed to \u200d [the companies&#8217;] \u200basbestos claimants \u200bup to a liability limit of $500,000 per claim,&#8221; the petition states.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In 2016, faced with\u200d significant asbestos-related liabilities,\u2062 [the companies] \u200b filed \u200dfor Chapter 11 bankruptcy. &#8230; Yet because Truck bears\u200c primary responsibility for all\u2062 14,000 known claims, Kaiser had \u2063little incentive during its negotiations with claimants&#8217; representatives to \u200censure that the resolved claims aren&#8217;t fraudulently inflated.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;So, in \u200dcoordination\u200b with the asbestos\u200c claimants&#8217; representatives, [the companies] initially proposed \u2064a &#8230; reorganization plan containing\u200d none of the now-standard anti-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scalise-tough-joe-manchin-can-handle-dems-backlash\/\" title=\"Scalise: 'Tough' Joe Manchin Can Handle Dems' Backlash\">fraud protections<\/a> for\u2062 the resolution \u200dof claims.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>When Truck objected to this arrangement that would expose it to fraudulent claims, \u200dthe companies\u200c did not disagree but\u200c said\u200d all\u200c &#8220;that \u2064mattered&#8221; was that \u2062the companies were protected.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Bankruptcy Code permits a \u2064&#8221;party in interest&#8221; to &#8220;appear and\u200b be heard on any issue&#8221; in a Chapter \u206311 proceeding, some courts have imposed judge-made limitations onto the\u200c law&#8217;s \u2064text. The federal bankruptcy court questioned \u200bwhether it could be confirmed\u200b that the \u2062<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-insurers-asbestos-dispute\/\" title=\"Supreme Court to review insurer's asbestos dispute.\">plan lacked standard fraud-prevention measures<\/a>, \u200daccording \u200cto the petition.<\/p>\n<p>The \u2064companies amended their plan to \u2062add fraud protections but only for the \u2062uninsured claims that are to be paid by a\u200b trust.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;No such measures were added\u2063 for the insured\u2062 claims\u2014for which Truck \u200bis financially\u2063 responsible and which the plan sends back into the tort system.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>After the companies said the claimants&#8217; representatives refused \u2062to \u200dconsent\u2064 to any plan that \u2064provided protections\u2064 for those thousands of claims, Truck reminded the \u2062companies \u200cof their \u2064duty \u2062under the insurance \u200cpolicy to assist Truck\u2062 in defending the claims on\u2063 pain\u2062 of voiding the policy.<\/p>\n<p>The companies submitted the\u200d plan after amending it to\u2063 say\u200d that they hadn&#8217;t violated their duties to Truck, but\u2063 the insurer\u200c objected, arguing it violated bankruptcy laws.<\/p>\n<p>The\u200d plan\u2064 wasn&#8217;t\u2062 proposed\u2064 in good faith, and \u200cthe 14,000 \u2064claims that were \u200breturned to the tort system &#8220;assume the \u2062liabilities of [the] debtor&#8221; and \u2064go around fraud protections, \u2064the insurer \u2062said.<\/p>\n<p>But the\u200d bankruptcy court recommended that the federal district court\u200c confirm the \u2062plan, which the latter \u200bcourt agreed to do, finding the companies lived up\u2062 to their duty of cooperation \u200bwith the insurer,\u2064 the \u200bpetition said.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-rules-against-social-media-companies-in-free-speech-censorship-fight\/\" title=\"Court Rules Against Social Media Companies in Free Speech Censorship Fight\">district court held<\/a> that Truck was not a party in interest because it\u2062 lacked &#8220;bankruptcy standing&#8221; and, therefore, could not object to \u2064the plan.\u200b The\u2064 court also found the plan was &#8220;neutral&#8221; in its treatment of\u200d Truck.<\/p>\n<p>The \u2064companies filed \u200ca brief with the Supreme Court urging\u2063 it to reject the case.<\/p>\n<p>The 4th Circuit was \u2064correct\u2063 to affirm the district court&#8217;s finding \u2064that because Truck&#8217;s\u2064 &#8220;interests were not altered by a Chapter 11 plan\u2063 of reorganization, Truck\u200b could \u2064not challenge\u2062 the plan,&#8221; they said.<\/p>\n<p>The\u200b Epoch Times has reached out\u200b for\u2063 comment to\u200b the attorney\u200b for the Truck\u2064 Insurance Exchange, Allyson\u2064 Ho of\u200b Gibson, Dunn, and\u200b Crutcher in \u200bDallas, Texas, and Kaiser\u200d Gypsum attorney Charles Kevin Marshall \u2062of Jones Day in Washington.<\/p>\n<p>Oral arguments in the case have not \u200cyet been scheduled.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2>What\u2062 is the basis\u2062 for Truck&#8217;s\u200b argument that\u200c it should have standing\u200d to object \u2062to\u200b the bankruptcy reorganization plan?<\/p>\n<\/h2>\n<p><span>  Nsecured creditors, not\u2063 for \u200bthe insurer. Truck challenged the plan, arguing that it did not provide \u200cadequate\u2063 protection against fraudulent claims and that it violated the \u200cinsurance neutrality rule.<\/p>\n<p>The\u2064 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit\u2062 disagreed\u200d with\u2062 Truck, ruling that the insurer \u200cdid not have standing to object to the plan. The court \u2064held \u2063that the bankruptcy \u200dstanding doctrine prohibited the \u200binsurer from participating in the bankruptcy process unless the plan \u200dformally altered the \u200cinsurer&#8217;s liability under its \u2064contracts. Since the plan did not \u2063directly affect the insurer&#8217;s \u2064liability, the court \u200dconcluded that the insurer lacked standing to object.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear\u200b Truck&#8217;s appeal. The key issue is \u2063whether an insurer has\u2064 standing \u200dto object \u200cto a bankruptcy\u2062 reorganization plan when\u2062 it bears near-exclusive \u2063financial\u2064 responsibility for the claims \u200dunder the\u2064 plan. Truck argues that the insurance neutrality rule should not \u2063prevent it from objecting to the \u200bplan because \u2064it is the \u2064party most\u200c affected\u2063 by the \u2064fraudulent claims.\u200c The insurer contends\u200d that it\u2063 should have the\u200b right to protect its financial interests\u200b and\u200c ensure that the resolved claims are not fraudulently inflated.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to\u2062 review the case could have significant implications for insurers and bankruptcy proceedings involving asbestos claims. Asbestos-related lawsuits\u2063 continue \u200dto \u2062be filed each year, \u2062and insurers play a crucial role in managing these claims. If the court\u200b upholds the 4th Circuit&#8217;s ruling, insurers may be limited in their ability to challenge bankruptcy plans\u2064 that fail to \u2062adequately address fraudulent claims.<\/p>\n<p>On the other\u2063 hand, if the court sides with Truck and allows insurers to object \u200dto such plans, it could encourage greater scrutiny and \u2064accountability in\u200b the resolution of asbestos claims. Insurers would have a stronger voice in ensuring that fraudulent or inflated claims are not approved, which could ultimately protect their financial interests.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s\u2062 decision will \u2062also have broader \u2063implications for\u200d the interpretation of the bankruptcy standing doctrine and \u2064the\u200b insurance neutrality rule. It will\u2062 clarify whether these rules should<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court will review an insurer&#8217;s argument that a bankruptcy reorganization plan does not safeguard it against deceitful claims linked to asbestos exposure. This appeal follows the 4th Circuit&#8217;s ruling that Truck Insurance Exchange Co. lacked the necessary legal standing to challenge Kaiser Gypsum&#8217;s Chapter 11 reorganization.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":168,"featured_media":2066978,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[543],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2066977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-epoch-times"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2066977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/168"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2066977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2066977\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2066978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2066977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2066977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2066977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}