In a dispute involving the interpretation of an excess policy issued by TIG Insurance Company, insured Grinnell Corporation moved to compel TIG to produce underwriting manuals, information relating to its reinsurance agreements, and reserve information. The court granted Grinnell’s request with respect to TIG’s underwriting manuals but rejected the insured’s request for information relating to TIG’s reinsurance agreements as irrelevant. The court held that “what TIG and its reinsurers may agree a term means . . . is not, ipso facto, probative of what that term means in the subject policy” and TIG’s coverage with its insureds was not necessarily co-extensive with the coverage TIG secured from reinsurers. The court also denied Grinnell’s request for reserve information, finding that TIG’s consideration of possible policy interpretations in setting reserves “is of little value in determining the meaning of a policy term or terms.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l, LTD., Case No. 3:08-1584 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2010).
This post written by Ben Seessel.