In a September 9, 2010, decision by Justice Ramos in connection with an insurance-coverage dispute between plaintiff-asbestos provider and defendant-insurers, and on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding a loss-of-fortuity exclusion in the related insurance policy, the court, “on weighing the public policy that . . . contracts for insurance based upon a known loss should not be enforced, against the right to establish private contracts,” granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendants’ motion, finding that the exclusion based on intended or expected harms did not apply because there was no evidence of bad faith or concealment of risks on the part of plaintiff who in fact habitually disclosed such risks to its customers. The court also denied defendants’ motion based on collateral estoppel for lack of specificity, finding that defendants did not sufficiently establish that the same issue was raised in a previous litigation.