Skip to main content

Riverwood Intern. Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

5th CircuitAugust 4, 2005No. 04-30608Cited 62 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurance company, holding that asbestos-related diseases are not 'bodily injury by accident' under the workers' compensation policies and are barred by the 36-month exclusion provision for 'bodily injury by disease' claims.

What This Ruling Means

**Riverwood International Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau** This case involved a dispute between Riverwood International Corporation and their workers' compensation insurance company, Employers Insurance of Wausau. Riverwood tried to get their insurance company to cover claims from workers who developed asbestos-related diseases, but the insurance company refused to pay. The court sided with the insurance company. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that asbestos-related illnesses don't count as "bodily injury by accident" under the workers' compensation insurance policy. Instead, these diseases are considered "bodily injury by disease," which means different rules apply. The court also found that the insurance company could use a 36-month exclusion rule that prevented them from having to pay for disease-related claims that were filed too late. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows how insurance companies can use specific policy language to avoid paying workers' compensation claims, especially for occupational diseases like those caused by asbestos exposure. Workers with job-related illnesses need to understand that these claims may face different deadlines and coverage rules than accident-related injuries. It's important to file disease-related workers' compensation claims as soon as possible and understand your policy's specific terms.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.