 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taurus Holdings9/22/2005
In this case we must decide whether commercial liability insurance policies exclude coverage for lawsuits that several municipalities have filed against a gun manufacturer. The municipalities seek to recover the cost of medical and other services incurred as a result of gun violence in their communities. The issue is whether the damages "arise out of" the use of guns, and are thus excluded from coverage under the policies' products-completed operations hazard exclusions. As we explain below, we hold that the broad language in the policies excluding from coverage "all bodily injury and property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of your product" excludes coverage for these lawsuits.
I. FACTS
Petitioners Taurus Holdings, Inc. and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. ("Taurus") manufacture, distribute, and sell firearms. Along with other handgun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, Taurus faces lawsuits from a number of municipalities around the nation seeking compensation for expenses incurred as a result of gun violence in their communities. The complaints allege several types of misconduct: that the gun manufacturers failed to make guns safe and prevent foreseeable misuse, and failed to provide appropriate warnings about the dangers of guns; that they designed, manufactured and marketed guns in excess of the demand that might be expected from legitimate consumers, thereby guaranteeing that the surplus would enter the illegal firearms market, and that they were aware that the guns they manufactured and sold would fall into the hands of criminals, but took no action to prevent it; and that they falsely and deceptively claimed through advertising and promotion of their handguns that the ownership and possession of handguns in the home increases one's security. Among other causes of action, the suits allege "negligence, negligent supervision, negligent marketing, negligent distribution, negligent advertising, negligent entrustment, public and private nuisance, failure to warn, false advertising, and unfair and deceptive trade practices." Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 367 F.3d 1252, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2004). The municipalities seek compensation for expenses they have incurred for, among other things, police protection, hospital costs, emergency medical services, and prosecution of violent crimes involving the use of handguns.
During the period in question, several different carriers--respondents United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd., Federal Insurance Company, Great Northern Insurance Company, and United National Insurance Company ("Insurers")--issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Taurus. Among other things, these policies require the Insurers to defend Taurus in "lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury, property damage, advertising injury, or personal injury ." Id. at 1253. The policies all contain exclusions, however, for "products-completed operations hazards." Federal Insurance Company's policy language is representative of the others. It excludes coverage for:
ll bodily injury and property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of your product or your work except:
a. products that are still in your physical possession; or b. work that has not yet been completed or abandoned.
The policy defines "your product" as follows:
ny goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by:
1. you;
2. others trading under your name; or
3. a person or organization whose business or assets
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|