Copeland Corporation Accuses Insurance Giant Travelers of Unfair Coverage Denial

In a high-stakes legal battle over insurance coverage, a company has emerged victorious in its appeal against an insurance giant. The dispute centers around the interpretation of insurance policies and their applicability to asbestos-related claims. Copeland Corporation LLC filed the complaint in the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on August 24, 2021, naming Travelers Casualty and Surety Company as one of the defendants.

The case revolves around three insurance policies issued by Travelers under which Copeland is an insured party. These policies were part of a larger set known as “the Hillman policies,” issued during the time when Copeland was owned by the Hillman Company from 1981 to 1985. Copeland, based in Sidney, Ohio, faced numerous lawsuits starting in the early 2000s due to alleged asbestos exposure from gaskets used in compressors they manufactured. The crux of the lawsuit was whether these asbestos claims should be treated as multiple occurrences or a single occurrence for determining coverage limits.

Copeland argued that each claim should be considered a separate occurrence, thus entitling them to higher coverage limits under Ohio law rather than Pennsylvania law, which would treat all claims as a single occurrence. This distinction was crucial because it determined whether Copeland could access up to $9 million in total coverage instead of being limited to $3 million. The trial court ruled in favor of Copeland on July 9, 2025, affirming that Ohio law applies and that each asbestos claim constitutes multiple occurrences.

Travelers appealed this decision, asserting that Pennsylvania law should govern since the policies were negotiated there with Hillman Company, a Pennsylvania-based entity. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing Ohio’s significant relationship with Copeland’s operations and risk location. As such, Ohio law prevailed, supporting multiple occurrences for each asbestos claim.

Copeland sought declaratory judgment and additional indemnity payments from Travelers under R.C. 2721.02(A), arguing for their rights and duties concerning policy coverage limits. With this ruling affirmed by Judges Juergen A. Waldick, Mark C. Miller, and John R. Willamowski under Case No. 17-25-11, Copeland stands to receive substantial financial relief for ongoing litigation costs related to asbestos claims.

The attorneys representing both sides included Charles W. Browning for Travelers (appellant) and Stacy R.C. Berliner for Copeland (appellee). This case underscores the complexities of insurance law and how jurisdictional nuances can significantly impact policy interpretations and financial liabilities.