Among other authorities, we rely upon the decisions in In re Global Industrial Technologies, Inc., 375 B.
from the property of the estate," and "[a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after commencement of the case." 11 U.
Coverage issues, including, inter alia, proof that an event giving rise to liability occurred within the covered period before a specific policy can be accessed for coverage, are all preserved. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Egger noted that National Memorial Services involved a life insurance policy but applied the rule to the facts before it involving personal injury and an excess insurance policy. 1995) ("The purpose of a no assignment clause is to protect the insurer from increased liability, and after events giving rise to the insurer's liability have occurred, the insurer's risk cannot be increased by a change in the insured's identity.").
In this case, to the extent that the events giving rise to liability have already occurred, there will be no additional risk to the insurance companies by virtue of the assignments. The court found that under § 1123(b)(3)(B), on the effective date of the plan, the Trust shall be vested with and have the right to enforce against any Entity any and all of such causes of action, with the proceeds of the recovery of any such actions related to insurance for Asbestos Related Claims (including, without limitation, the Coverage Litigation) to be paid to the respective Debtor....
There is a dispute among the parties as to whether any anti-assignment provision of the policies is violated under state law at all, given the insurance neutrality provisions the insurers' right to argue state law in state courts. Ed.2d 181 (1989); In re Stone & Webster, Inc., 286 B. It is established in this circuit that under § 1123(a)(5) assignment of policy proceeds to a § 524(g) trust is not prohibited by anti-assignment provisions in insurance policies. Section 1123(a)(5) "is an empowering statute" that "enhanc[es] the ability of the trustee or debtor in possession to deal with property of the estate." In re FCX, Inc., 853 F.2d at 1155. Foulke provided plant protection and security services pursuant to its contracts with PECO. May 25, 2006)(anti-assignment clauses are to protect insurer from increase in the risk it agreed to insure but assignment of loss does not expand risk to insurer, simply allows change in identity to "reconnect the policy's coverage to the insured loss;" most courts follow the risk/loss distinction to allow insured to assign loss); R. Accordingly, we found that there was no "sound reason for the insurance company to forbid or limit an assignment by a beneficiary of the amount due him or her after the death of the insured." Id. However, with the Gulf excess insurance policy, there was no death of an insured; rather, Foulke purchased coverage to protect itself against an award of damages exceeding the limits of its primary liability policy with respect to its activities at the PECO plant. Cal.2003), the bankruptcy court concluded that under 11 U. In a subsequent opinion in the same case, In re Western Asbestos Co., 313 B.