Cases decided after the California Supreme Court's decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemn. Co., 62 P.3d 69 (Cal. 2001) seem to universally continue the trend that an assignment of comprehensive liability policies to a successor is invalid where there is a no assignment clause and the insurer's consent was not secured. I have found no post-Henkel case that follows the opposite view espoused by cases such as Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 955 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1992)(benefits of policy transfer by operation of law to successor corporation).
In preparation for my upcoming presentation on "Transfer of Coverage Under the Predecessor's Liability Policies" at the ABA, Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee's annual insurance seminar [see brochure and agenda here], I recently read two more cases aligned with Henkel. The court in Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 414 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2006) acknowledged the "majority rule": the "no-transfer" provision is valid for transfers that were made prior to the insured-against loss has occurred. And in Pilkington N. Am, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 861 N.E. 2d 121 (Ohio 2006), the court held that when the injury occurs before the liability is transferred to a successor, coverage does not arise by operation of law when the liability is assumed by contract.
In addition to the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734(Haw. 2007) [see post here and here], cases following Henkel in one way or another are as follows:
Are there any more relevant, post-Henkel cases I have missed?
