Quantcast

Justices grant Huntington Ingalls special appearance in suit over insurers’ asbestos litigation obligations

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Justices grant Huntington Ingalls special appearance in suit over insurers’ asbestos litigation obligations

Asbestos
Asbestos 03

HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals recently reversed a ruling denying Huntington Ingalls’ special appearance in litigation brought by insurers seeking to determine their obligations under insurance policies for asbestos suits brought against the company. 

In their petition, the insurers, collectly the “London Market Insurers,” sought declaratory judgment to determine “the parties’ rights and obligations under certain excess liability insurance policies” for personal-injury claims brought against Huntington Ingalls in alleged asbestos litigation. 

The insurance policies, which were in effect between 1968 and 1986, had been “placed in the London Insurance Market on behalf” of Tenneco and its subsidiaries at the time, including Huntington Ingalls’s corporate predecessor, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, and issued by the various London Market Insurers, court records state.

Court records show Huntington Ingalls filed a special appearance, asserting that Texas lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over the company. The trial court denied the company’s special appearance. Huntington Ingalls appealed, arguing the trial court erred. 

On Feb. 1, the First Court held the trial court erred, sustaining Huntington Ingalls’ sole issue. 

 

“We conclude that Huntington Ingalls satisfied its burden to show that, even if the facts alleged by the London Market Insurers were true, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in Texas over Huntington Ingalls,” the opinion states. “We reverse the trial court’s order denying Huntington Ingalls’s special appearance and render judgment dismissing the London Market Insurers’ suit against Huntington Ingalls for lack of personal jurisdiction.”  

Case No. 01-21-00262

More News