A Travelers subsidiary has no obligation to defend a construction company against a suit seeking indemnification for asbestos-related injury claims, a South Carolina federal court ruled, finding that the suit does not establish a duty to defend. The court determined that the claim against the construction company was not sufficiently tied to the subsidiary's insurance coverage or liability, and therefore, Travelers is not required to provide legal defense or financial support. This decision underscores the narrow scope of indemnification obligations in insurance disputes involving asbestos exposure, particularly when the claims are not directly linked to the insurer's policy coverage or risk exposure.

Travelers Units Freed From Builder's Asbestos Injury Dispute

A South Carolina federal court ruled that a Travelers subsidiary has no obligation to defend a construction company in a lawsuit seeking indemnification for asbestos-related injury claims, as the suit does not establish a duty to defend. The court found the claim insufficiently tied to the subsidiary's insurance coverage or liability, highlighting the narrow scope of indemnification obligations in insurance disputes involving asbestos exposure when claims are not directly linked to the insurer's policy coverage or risk exposure.