Court strikes down three exclusions after insurer refuses to defend & more related News Here

The first was its employer’s liability exclusion, which was written to bar claims for bodily injury to the employee’s child as a result of the employee’s injury. The court found that the problem was that Domion’s complaint never actually described how the child was harmed. This left open a scenario where Pedro brought the chemical product and substance home without causing any injury to himself, and the child was thus exposed. The complaint flagged failures in Triquint’s ventilation, industrial hygiene policies, and personal protective equipment, which only strengthened that possibility. With that ambiguity at play, the exclusion clearly could not apply.