The insurance units further contend that P&G has not shown that the release of 1,4-dioxane was sudden or accidental, as required for coverage under the policies’ “sudden and accidental” exceptions. Because the underlying lawsuits accuse P&G of knowing about the chemical’s environmental impact, the Hartford units argue that no covered occurrence is alleged.
The case, First State Insurance Co. et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co., is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, with the Hartford units represented by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Karbal Cohen Economou Silk & Dunne LLC. Counsel for P&G was not immediately available for comment.
