We previously reviewed Pilkington N.A. Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67291 (N.D. Ohio July 27, 2009) [here], where the court determined there was coverage for a successor corporation under the predecessor's CGL policy despite the policies' anti-assignment provision. In the recent sequel, the court denied the insurers' motion for reconsideration. Pilkington N.A. Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 3:01CV7617, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94322 (N.D. Ohio July 27, 2009).
By way of background, the predecessor corporation transferred all of its assets and liabilities to the successor corporation through a Transfer and Assumption Agreement. The successor demanded coverage for environmental damage that occurred prior to 1986 when the predecessor held policies with the insurers. In July 2009, the court held that the Transfer and Assumption Agreement transferred all of the choses in action to the successor, including the CGL policies, irregardless of the anti-assignment provisions.
Nothing in the insurers' motion for reconsideration indicated the court had made a clear error of law, overlooked binding precedent, or needed to look at newly developed evidence. Therefore, the insurers were not entitled to reconsideration of the prior decision.
