Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America et al

  1. July 15, 2022

    Glassmaker, Insurer Settle Tornado Damage Coverage Dispute

    Pilkington and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co. have reached a settlement in the glass manufacturer's tornado coverage suit over damages potentially as high as $100 million, according to an order filed Friday in New York federal court.

  2. April 06, 2022

    Glass Maker Must Share Docs In Tornado Insurance Suit

    A New York federal judge ordered glass manufacturer Pilkington to share documents with its insurer, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., in a suit over coverage of $60 million to $100 million in tornado damage that Pilkington said its Illinois facility sustained. 

  3. May 19, 2021

    Insurer Can't Pass The Buck In $100M Tornado Damage Battle

    A New York federal judge on Wednesday dropped an insurance company's claims that its broker and glass manufacturer Pilkington's Japanese parent company should foot the bill if the insurer has to shell out more than the $15 million it has already paid for tornado damage to Pilkington's Illinois facility.  

  4. February 04, 2021

    Glass Co.'s Parent Asks Out Of Tornado Insurance Dispute

    The Japanese parent company of American glass manufacturer Pilkington urged a New York federal court to drop claims brought against it by the manufacturer's insurer, saying the allegations are a backdoor effort to obtain discovery and should be arbitrated.

  5. November 10, 2020

    Insurer Can't Cap Coverage In $85M Tornado Suit

    A New York federal judge on Tuesday rebuffed Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.'s argument that glass-making company Pilkington North America Inc. is barred from seeking up to $85 million in additional coverage for tornado damage to its Illinois facility, beyond the $15 million the insurer has already paid out.

  6. September 07, 2018

    Glassmaker Says Insurer Flubbed Tornado Policy

    An architectural and automotive glassmaker alleged in New York federal court that its insurer failed to give proper notice on a policy change and its broker failed to catch the change, telling the court it should be compensated $60 million to $100 million for tornado damage.