|
|
|
|
Alphabetical
List of Representative Nationwide Litigation
Handled by Attorneys at Bates & Carey LLP
Alabama
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Alabama federal court |
In Re HealthSouth Corporation Insurance Litigation, Case No. CV-03-BE-1139-S. |
Prosecuted a rescission action based on the Insured’s misrepresentations in the application and negotiation of an excess directors and officers liability insurance policy. |
Alabama
state court |
Illinois
Central Railroad Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co.,
No. CV-99-3525 |
Successfully
defended insurer in declaratory judgment action
regarding railroad insured’s environmental
liabilities in which relevant issues were set-offs
for prior settlements and allocation. |
Arizona
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Arizona
state court |
Maricopa
County v. American Re |
Successfully
argued to trial court that “sudden”
has a temporal meaning in the pollution exclusion
applicable to our client’s defense of a major
environmental loss. |
| Arizona
state court |
Inspiration
Consolidated v. Copper Co. v. Aetna, No. CV
98-00530 |
Represented
insurer in coverage litigation concerning environmental
class action bodily injury and property damage claims
arising from pollution at a copper mining facility. |
California
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| California
federal court |
United
States Fire & Guaranty Co. v. American Reinsurance
Company, No. SACV-02-1077 (C.D. Cal 2003) |
Obtained
Rule 12(b)(7) dismissal of multi-million dollar
reinsurance lawsuit. |
| California
state court |
Insurance
Company of North America v. Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co., No. C95-04672 |
Successfully
defended insurer in declaratory judgment action
filed by insurers involving railroad-insured’s
environmental liabilities. |
Colorado
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Colorado
federal court |
Power
Engineering et al v. Chicago Ins. Co., et al.,
No. 00-B-1699 |
Successfully
represented client in suit arising from chromium
contamination allegedly resulting from insured’s
operations. The defense focused on establishing
multiple routine and non-insured causes of contamination
over decades, and also attacked the ability of the
plaintiff’s hydrogeology expert to properly
apportion the loss. |
Connecticut
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Connecticut
federal court |
Richmond,
Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co. v. Aetna
Casualty and Surety Co., No. 3:96 CV 1054 (AHN) |
Successfully
defended insurer in declaratory judgment action
involving railroad-insured’s environmental
liabilities. |
Delaware
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Delaware state court |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Civil Action No. 06C-06-185. |
Represent insurer in coverage dispute involving lead paint, Teflon, and silica. |
| Delaware state court |
Combustion Engineering v. Allianz Global risks U.S. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 06C-04-200. |
Represent insurers in coverage dispute involving claims by a section 524(g) asbestos bankruptcy trust. |
| Delaware state court |
Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Chubb, Case No. 06C-02-016 JRS. |
Obtained dismissal of excess professional liability carrier in connection with declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for judgment rendered against the Insured for compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. |
| Delaware
state court |
ABB
Flakt, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.,
731 A. 2d 811 (Del. 1999) |
“Advertising
injury” provision of a general liability policy
did not apply to provide coverage for a patent infringement
claim. |
| Delaware
state court |
Hercules
Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co, 1998 WL 962089
(Del. Super. Sept. 30, 1998) |
In
this $9 million environmental coverage dispute,
while numerous carriers bore liability for the claim,
a jury found that events during the policy period
of our client did not substantially contribute to
the damage, and therefore our client was found not
liable for indemnification costs relative to this
claim. |
| Delaware
state court |
Homsey
Architects v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
No. 96C-06-082 JOH (Del.Sup.Ct. 2000) |
The
court ruled on two issues of first impression in
Delaware finding that: (i) no showing of prejudice
is required under a claims made and reported policy
and (ii) information regarding a potential claim
contained in an application for insurance can not
constitute notice of a potential claim. |
| Delaware
state court |
Hercules,
Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., Consol. C.A.
Nos. 92C-10-105 & 90C-FE-195-1-CV (Del. Super.
Aug. 31, 1999) (Dkt. No. 2798 & 2799) |
Final
judgment order upholding modified pro rata allocation. |
| Delaware
state court |
Hercules,
Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. Consol. C.A.
Nos. 92C-10-105 & 90C-FE-195-1-CV, (Del. Super.
Jan. 14, 1998) (Dkt. No. 2338) |
Summary
judgment rulings applying modified pro rata allocation
and enforcing pollution exclusions. |
District of Columbia
JURISDICTION |
CASE NAME |
ISSUES / RESULT |
DC federal court |
Whitman Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., Case No. 1:05-CV-1124. |
Represent insurer in asbestos-related bodily injury declaratory judgment involving number of occurrences, allocation, trigger of coverage, and exhaustion issues. |
Florida
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Florida
federal court |
Celotex
Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co., 216 B.R. 867 (Bankr.
M.D.Fla. 1997) |
In
this coverage dispute, in which the insured sought
over $100 million, the court found that the insured
had given our client late and unreasonable
notice of asbestos bodily injury claims. Therefore,
the claims were not covered under the subject policies. |
| Florida |
Celotex
Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co., 196 B.R. 611 (Bankr.
M.D. Fla. 1996) |
Granting
summary judgment as to asbestos bodily injury claims
on late notice grounds. |
| Circuit
Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for
Dural County, Florida |
CSX
Transportation, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., No.
96-00415 CA |
In
declaratory judgment action regarding railroad's
liabilities for FELA claims for exposure to industrial
solvents, court granted summary judgment in insurers'
favor on all issues, including: number of occurrences,
allocation, limits available under multi-year policies,
consent requirement prior to incurring defense costs
and whether claims constituted occupational diseases. |
| Florida
state court |
Satari
Corp., Essex Ins. Co., & Commercial Ins. Underwriters
v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co. & Preferred Mutual Ins.
Co., No. 0- 9750-CA 04 |
Retained
by insurance company to represent its interests with
respect to coverage involving latex gloves. |
| Florida
federal court |
CSX
Transp., Inc., v. Admiral Ins. Co., et al., No.
93-132-Civ-J-10 |
Successfully
litigated issues of occupational disease exclusion
arising out of chemical exposures. |
Georgia
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Georgia state court |
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Brown, Case No. 06-0070. |
Achieved favorable settlement of a coverage dispute on behalf of insurer in suit for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
(Georgia) |
Coregis
Ins. Co. v. Wallace & Tetreault, No. 00-12545
(11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2000) |
Summary
judgment granted under prior knowledge exclusion.
Court also rejected the insured’s arguments
regarding the insurer’s purported bad faith
conduct and insured’s waiver and estoppel
defenses. |
| Georgia
federal court |
Sumitomo
Marine & Fire Insurance Company of America,
v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Company of Georgia
and Columbia National Insurance Company; Case
No. 1:2-cv-584-CAM |
Prosecuted
action for contribution and subrogation against
non-contributing insurers of residential housing
development for reimbursement of amounts paid to
defend and indemnify property damage and nuisance
claims by surrounding homeowners. |
Hawaii
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Hawaii Supreme Court |
Del Monte Fresh Produce, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., Case No. 97-3323-08. |
Represent insurer in an environmental property damage dispute over triggering events and the duty to defend and indemnify the insured. |
| Hawaii
state court |
Castle
& Cooke Resorts, LLC, fka Lanai Company, Inc,
a Hawaii corporation v. G.W. Murphy Construction,
Case No. 01-1-0395(1) |
Successful
representation of insurer against insured in insurance
coverage litigation involving the scope of property
damage coverage and application of various exclusions
arising out of underlying lawsuits involving luxury
hotel construction defects. |
Idaho
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Idaho
federal court |
Michael
Banning v. Houghton Mifflin Company, Case No.
CIV 01-0017-S-BLW |
Successfully
secured summary judgment for a national textbook
publishing company in a multi-million dollar suit
brought by a former chief executive alleging disability
discrimination in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Idaho
Human Rights Act (Title 67, Chapter 59 of the Idaho
Code) and age discrimination under the Federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)
and the Idaho Human Rights Act (Title 67, Chapter
59 of the Idaho Code). |
Illinois
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Illinois state court |
Ryerson Tull v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, Case No. 01 CH 146 55 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, February 15, 2006). |
Obtained summary judgment against insured who had settled $15 million underlying products liability claim, and sought indemnification from its primary and umbrella insurers. While summary judgment was awarded against primary insurer, B&C secured summary judgment for its client, the umbrella insurer, arguing that the underlying settlement was not in reasonable anticipation of covered liability. |
| Illinois
state court |
Aqua-Aerobic
v. St. Paul, No. 02 L 228 |
Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Bates &
Carey’s client, an umbrella carrier finding
that the umbrella carrier did not breach its duty
to defend by refusing to drop-down and defend the
insured where the primary insurer wrongfully denied
coverage. |
| Illinois
federal court |
Paul
Wurster v. Riverport Railroad, LLC, 2003 WL
22709900 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 7, 2003) |
Case
against defendant railroad dismissed on summary
judgment motion challenging federal court’s
jurisdiction. Court held that suit could not be
brought under Federal Employers Liability Act because
railroad was not “common carrier railroad
in interstate commerce” at time of employee’s
injury. |
| Illinois
state court |
Ronald
Bennett v. Swanson Asphalt Company, Inc., No.
00 L 014445 (August 16, 2002) |
Construction
company granted summary judgment on personal injury
claim alleging that equipment loaned or rented to
another construction company was unsafe. Court ruled
that, as bailor of equipment, defendant’s
only obligation was to warn of latent defects. Since
Plaintiff had testified that he was aware of allegedly
unsafe condition of the road grader’s step
weeks before accident, there could be no further
duty to warn. |
| Illinois
state court |
Pickens-Kane
v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, et al.,
No. 02 L 014027 (December 16, 2003) |
Court
granted dismissal of complaint against insurance
company on all causes of action, including breach
of contract, bad faith, and tortious interference
with contract. Court held that insured could not
sustain claims against insurance company as a matter
of law where insurance company had provided defense
to trucking company for a claim that proved to be
fraudulent. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(Illinois) |
Loyola
University of Chicago v. Humana Ins. Co., 996
F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1993) |
A
hospital brought an action against its group health
insurer to cover the costs of the insured’s
artificial heart transplant. After Bob Bates' argument
to the Seventh Circuit, the court ruled that the
insurer’s denial of the claim was based upon
a reasonable interpretation of the policy exclusion
relative to procedures that were “experimental
for the condition involved.” |
| Illinois
state court |
Outboard
Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 283
Ill.App.3d 630, 670 N.E.2d 740 (2d Dist. 1996) |
In
a matter of first impression in Illinois, the Illinois
Supreme Court adopted a “pro rata” time-on-the-risk
approach to assigning liability to the excess carriers
in this environmental contamination dispute. This
allocation resulted in each carrier paying a share
of indemnification, except for Bates & Carey's
client. |
| Illinois
federal court |
Williams
v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1029
(N.D. Ill. 1997) |
Granting
summary judgment in favor of insurer on ground that
plan excludes particular cancer treatment procedure
and holding that insurer has no responsibility to
notify employee regarding termination of one group
plan and switch to another. |
| Illinois
state court |
Missouri
Pac. R.R. v. American Re-Insurance Co., 286
Ill. App. 3d 129, 676 N.E.2d 965 (Ill. App. 2d Dist.
1997) |
On
issue of first impression, holding that noise-induced
hearing loss is an occupational disease; that the
"cessation from work clause was unambiguous;”
and that discovery as to development of unambiguous
terms of policy was properly precluded. |
| Illinois
state court |
Westchester
Fire Ins. Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
, 2000 WL 1875875 (Ill.App.Ct. Dec. 22, 2000) |
Appellate
Court reversed a $5.5 million judgment holding that
the known loss/loss in progress doctrines precluded
coverage and that insurer did not breach its duty
to defend. |
| Illinois
state court |
EWC
Contractors v. National Union, Case No. 96 CH
010794 (Cir.Ct. Cook Cty. 2000) |
Summary
judgment granted finding that insurer did not breach
duty to defend and did not violate Illinois Ins.
Code Section 155. |
| Illinois
state court |
Travelers
Ins. Co.v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., Nos. 88407,
88410 (Ill. Dec. 1, 2000) |
Property
damage coverage triggered only by an actual leak
in a polybutylene pipe; replacement cost for non-leaking
pipe not covered by CGL policy. |
| Illinois
federal court |
NEC
Mitsubishi Display of America v. ViewSonic Corporation,
Case No.: 02 C 08304 |
Prosecuted
a suit on behalf of NEC Mitsubishi against ViewSonic
alleging various theories of liability arising from
a false, misleading and deceptive marketing campaign. |
| Illinois
federal court |
Grinder
International v. Tokyo World Transport (USA), Inc.,
Case No. 99 C 6445 |
Represented
an international cargo shipper in a breach of contract
dispute involving the shipment of manufacturing
equipment from Great Britain to the United States. |
| Illinois
federal court |
NEC
Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics of America,
Inc., Case No. 00C2774 |
Filed
suit against Samsung on behalf of NEC Mitsubishi,
alleging Samsung had initiated an unfair, misleading,
deceptive marketing campaign, including print advertisements
in such national publications as the Wall Street
Journal and Fortune Magazine. |
| Illinois
Appellate Court, First District |
O'Rourke
v. Oney, No. 1-96-2657 (Ill. App. 1st Dist.
1998) |
Affirming
trial court’s dismissal of legal malpractice
action. |
| Illinois
federal court |
In
re Kewanee Boiler Corp., --- B.R. ----, 2003
WL 22068080 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug 29, 2003) |
Creditor's
claim under asset purchase agreement was fully discharged,
and creditor is therefore barred from seeking further
indemnity for asbestos-related claims. |
| Illinois
federal court |
Lyons
v. Premium Armored Services, Inc., 2002 WL 31867702
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2002) |
Dismissing
claim where former employee alleged she was discharged
in retaliation for her husband's filing of a workers'
compensation claim against the same employer. |
| Illinois
federal court |
In
re Kewanee Boiler Corp., 270 B.R. 912 (Bkrtcy.
N.D. Ill. 2002) |
Bankruptcy
court has "core" jurisdiction to reopen
Chapter 11 case and to decide whether creditor violated
discharge injunction by seeking indemnity from debtor
for thousands of asbestos-related cases. |
| Illinois
state court |
Tribune
Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 715 N.E.2d 263 (Ill.
App. 1 Dist. 1999) |
Affirming
summary judgment for insurer where insured had not
provided timely notice of underlying environmental
claim. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(Illinois) |
Highlands
v. Lewis Rail Serv. Co., 10 F.3d 1247 (7th
Cir. 1993) |
Affirming
summary judgment in favor of insurer on notice grounds. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(Illinois) |
Fuller
v. CBT Corp., 962 F.2d 10 (7th Cir.
1992) |
Affirming
summary judgment in favor of employee health plan
for allegedly violating uniformity provision of
plan by refusing to extend dependent health benefits
six months after termination of employee. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(Illinois) |
Fuller
v. CBT Corp., 905 F.2d 1055 (7th
Cir. 1990) |
Affirming
employee health plan determination of no coverage
for vasectomy reversal. |
| Illinois
state court |
Belinda
Hunter v. Southworth Products Corp., 775 N.E.
2d 238 (4th Dist. 2002) |
Won
appeal, upholding viability of third-party claim
against former employer, resulting in 50% reduction
in client’s exposure. |
| Illinois
state court |
Missouri
Pacific R.R. Co. v. International Ins. Co.,
288 Ill.App.3d 69, 679 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. App. 2nd
Dist. 1997) |
In
declaratory judgment action regarding asbestos and
noise-induced hearing loss FELA claims, appellate
court held that claims must be allocated to specific
policy periods, if possible; if claims could not
be so allocated, time-on-the risk, pro-rata allocation
method would be applied, SIRs constituted primary
coverage which insurer must exhaust prior to looking
to insurers for coverage; one SIR must be exhausted
per policy period, per occurrence. |
| Illinois
state court |
Burlington
Northern Railroad Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety
Co., No. 92 MR 164 |
Trial
court granted summary judgment in insurers’
favor holding that noise-induced hearing loss claims
of railroad workers constitute occupational diseases. |
Indiana
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Indiana
state court |
P.R.
Mallory & Co., et al. v. American States Ins.
Co., et al., Case No. 54C01 0005 CPO 156 |
Successfully
settled insurance dispute involving environmental
contamination arising from multiple sites formerly
owned and operated by insured. We advocated the
defense that, based on the law of corporate succession,
the plaintiff had contractually assumed the insured’s
liabilities, and was not, in fact, the proper holder
of the rights to recovery under the insured’s
policies. |
Iowa
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Iowa
state court |
Bituminous
Casualty Corp. v. Del Rich Battery and Metal Co.,
et al., No. 101924 |
Represented
insurer with respect to dispute over insurance coverage
for alleged past and future costs relating to environmental
remediation. |
Kansas
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Kansas
state court |
The
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
v. Stonewall Ins. Co, et al., Case No. 94 CV
1464 (2003) |
Represented
insurer at the trial, appellate and supreme court
levels in action involving railroad employees' noise-induced
hearing loss claims against railroad employer. The
issues involved included the number of occurrences,
known loss, trigger of coverage and exhaustion.
|
Kentucky
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Kentucky
federal court |
Ashland
Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. et al., No.
LEX 98-340 |
Successfully
defended client against claim for insurance coverage
arising from the settlement of over 600 bodily injury
claims of workers exposed to various chemicals at
a Lockheed-Martin facility. We posed the legal argument
that the policies did not possibly respond to insure
injuries that first occurred after the policies’
expiration. |
Louisiana
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Louisiana
state court |
Ducote
v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 730 So. 2d 432 (La.
1999) (amicus party) |
"Total"
pollution exclusion was clear and unambiguous and
operated to bar coverage for claim involving a release
of ammonia from ruptured pipeline. |
| Louisiana
state court |
Kansas
City Railway Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., No.
447957-A |
Court
granted insurer-client’s motion to dismiss
insured’s declaratory judgment action in favor
of more comprehensive action filed by insurer client
in Missouri. |
| Louisiana
state court |
Norfolk
Southern Corp., et al, v. California Union Ins. Co.,
et al., Case No. 410025-D |
Successfully
settled action on behalf of insurer-client immediately
prior to trial. Action concerned coverage obligations
for hundreds of environmental liabilities of policyholder
railroad. |
Maine
JURISDICTION |
CASE NAME |
ISSUES / RESULT |
Maine state court |
Citizens Communications Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., Case No. CV-02-237. |
Represent insurer in declaratory judgment involving environmental coverage dispute. |
Maryland
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Maryland
state court |
Continental
Ins. Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company,
et al., No. 90 CG 45521 871152 |
Trial
resulted in jury verdict in favor of insurers after
railroad policyholders’ case in chief, finding
that number of occurrences was equal to the number
of noise-induced hearing loss claimants and that
claims were not “accidents.” |
Massachusetts
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Massachusetts federal court |
Great American Insurance Company, et al. v. Riso, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-12260-GAO. |
Achieved summary judgment on obligation to defend insured copy machine manufacturer under commercial general liability and umbrella policies in an antitrust suit. |
| Massachusetts
federal court |
MSM
Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Cos.,
1997 WL 260059 (D. Mass. March 25, 1997), aff'd,
125 F.3d 841, 1997 WL 582801 (1st Cir. Sept. 18,
1997) |
Insured
is precluded from re-litigating determination that
environmental contamination was not the result of
a "sudden and accidental" release. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Massachusetts)
|
Mt.
Airy Ins. Co. v. Greenbaum, 127 F.3d 15 (1st
Cir. 1997) |
Summary
judgment granted under business risk exclusions. |
Michigan
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Michigan federal court |
American Home Assurance Company v. The Selective Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-056997-CK. |
Prevailed on a declaratory judgment, arguing that an insured condo developer’s settlement of underlying copyright infringement case did not trigger umbrella insurer’s obligation to indemnify under “advertising injury” coverage. |
| Michigan
federal court |
Commercial
Union Ins. Co. v. Cannelton Industries, Inc.,
938 F. Supp. 458 (W.I. Mich. 1996) |
"Sudden
and accidental" pollution exclusion demand clear
and unambiguous under Michigan and Ontario law,
thus barring policyholder from utilizing extrinsic
evidence to ascertain parties' intent as to the
meaning of the exclusion. |
Minnesota
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Minnesota
state court |
Donna
Wilson, et al. v. Daniel Leitner, et al., No.
C4-99-7770 (August 19, 2002) |
Defense
verdict at conclusion of plaintiff’s case
in professional liability suit against CPA brought
by former clients penalized by IRS for internal
accounting practices and tax underpayment. |
Missouri
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Missouri state court |
Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Legion Indemnity Co., Case No. 042-302. |
Represent insurer in dispute over coverage for damages incurred in underlying injury suits by insured hotel plaintiffs. |
| Missouri
state court |
Herzog
Services, Inc. and Herzog Contracting Corp. v. Zurich
American Insurance Company, Case No. 02 CV 228896 |
Successful
in obtaining summary judgment in favor of Zurich
against plaintiffs’ bad faith claims. Plaintiffs
alleged Zurich committed bad faith by engaging in
“bullying” tactics during settlement
negotiations with a third-party claimant. We successfully
argued that the tort of bad faith is limited in
application to instances where the insurer fails
to settle within the insured’s policy limits
and that the tort does not apply to generic allegations
of bad faith or breaches of fiduciary duties. |
| Missouri
state court |
International
Ins. Co. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. |
Client
filed comprehensive declaratory judgment action
in state court for railroad insured’s environmental
and FELA bodily injury claims and defeated railroad’s
motion to dismiss action in favor of actions filed
by railroad insured in Louisiana and Texas. |
Montana
JURISDICTION |
CASE NAME |
ISSUES / RESULT |
Montana federal court |
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Elenburg Exploration Co., Case No. CV-05-80. |
Represented insurer disputing coverage based upon asbestos exclusion, achieving favorable settlement. |
Nebraska
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Nebraska federal court |
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Aaron-Ferer and Sons Co., Case No. 4:06 CV 3128. |
Represent insurer disputing coverage for environmental claims. |
| Nebraska federal court |
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Am. Re-Ins. Co., Case No. 8:06CV-16. |
Represent reinsurer in coverage dispute involving assignment of claims and alleged placement of trucking risk. |
| Nebraska
federal court |
Floyd's
Sales & Serv. Inc. v. Universal Underwriters
Ins. Co., 910 F. Supp. 464 (D. Neb. 1995) |
Summary
judgment entered in favor of insurer on grounds
that term “damages” as used in the policies’
insuring clause did not include insured’s
liability for CERCLA response costs. |
| Nebraska
federal court |
American
Simmental Ass'n v Coregis, 75 F.Supp.2d 1023
(D.Neb. 1999) |
Court
found primary CGL carrier breached its duty to defend
under advertising injury coverage and held that
our client was entitled to indemnity for defense
costs paid under its policy. |
Nevada
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Las
Vegas |
Fleck
v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company
(no court) |
Successfully
resolved coverage dispute under commercial auto
policy in favor of insurer. |
New
Hampshire
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| New
Hampshire federal court |
Energynorth
Natural Gas, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
et al., No. 00-430-B |
Currently
representing client in suit arising from contamination
emanating from a former manufactured gas plant.
The threshold issue is whether the insured can demonstrate
a discrete, identifiable spill that caused the contamination
such that there is an "occurrence" under
New Hampshire insurance law. |
New
Jersey
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| New
Jersey state court |
New
Jersey Transit v. General Accident Ins. Co., et
al., No. HUD-L-4959-1 |
Insurance
company prosecuted professional malpractice claim
against insurance broker under assignments from
named insured and intended additional insured. Favorable
settlement from insurance broker to reimburse insurance
company for payments made on behalf of railroad
that broker failed to add to insurance policy. |
| New
Jersey state court |
Diamond Shamrock v. Aetna Cas. And Sur.,
258 N.J.Super. 167, 609 A.2d 440 (N.J. 1992) |
The
trial court found no coverage for dioxin contamination
at Diamond’s Newark plant based on intentional
and knowing polluting activities. The appellate
court affirmed this ruling on appeal and further
found that there was no coverage for Diamond’s
$23 million Agent Orange settlement based on the
application of the war risk exclusion. |
| New
Jersey state court |
Diamond
Shamrock Chems. Co. v. Aetna Ca. & Sur. Co.,
609 A.2d 440 (N.J. Super. App. Div.1992 |
Affirming
jury verdict of no coverage for dioxin contamination
and applying war risk exclusion to bar coverage
for servicemen’s Agent Orange claim settlement.
|
New
York
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| New
York federal court |
William
Baker v. The Long Island Railroad Company, et al.,
No. CV-99-7187 (July 2001) |
With
summary judgment motion to dismiss railroad’s
claims for coverage under Railroad Protective Liability
Insurance policy pending, railroad dismissed suit
against insurance company for nominal settlement. |
| New
York state court |
Ridley
v. Cosmopolitan (King’s County), No. 14469/02
|
Defended
insurer in declaratory litigation involving scope
of coverage for claims arising from minor’s
ingestion of lead paint. |
| New
York state court |
American
Re-Insurance Co. v. USF & G, et al., No.
604517102 |
Currently
representing reinsurer in $400 million reinsurance
dispute raising issues of first impression. |
North
Carolina
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| North
Carolina state court |
Bituminous
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Stanley M. Frye and
Sailfish Exterior Coatings, reported in 13 No.
36 Mealey's Litig. Rep.: Ins. 11 (July 27, 1999) |
A
North Carolina federal judge ruled that the “damage
to your work” exclusion barred coverage for
a construction defect claim relating to synthetic
stucco exterior finishing. |
Ohio
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Ohio state court |
The Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Case No. 409039. |
Successfully defended insurer in lead-based paint claims. |
| United States court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Ohio) |
Gencorp, Inc. v. AIU Insurance Co., Case No. 04-3244. |
Represented re-insurer in environmental coverage action involving allocation dispute. |
| Ohio
federal court |
Robert
Bean v. Northern Ohio & Western Railway, LLC,
No. 3:97CV7094 (October 1999) |
Negotiated
nominal settlement on behalf of governmental owner
of railroad tracks in fatal crossing accident involving
allegations of faulty crossing warning lights. |
| Ohio
state court |
Goodyear
v. Aetna (Summit County, OH) |
Environmental
coverage action resulting in a judgment for the
insurers after several weeks of trial. |
| Ohio
state court |
College
of Mt. St. Joseph v. NEC Computers, Inc., Case
No. A0100053 |
Represented
a manufacturer of handheld computers in a lawsuit
involving claims of breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranties, fraud, and deceptive
trade practices. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Ohio)
|
International
EPDM Rubber Roofing Systems, Inc. v. Admiral Ins.
Co., No. 96-3337 (6th Cir. 1997), reprinted
in 11 Mealey's Litig. Rep.: Ins. 10 (June 3,
1997) |
Insurance
coverage not available for hundreds of defective
roofing claims asserted against the manufacturer
of allegedly defective roofing system, and rejecting
bad faith claims and claims against insurers asserted
pursuant to an “assignment” and “covenant
not to execute.” |
| Ohio
state court |
Williams
v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company |
Successfully
mediated brain damage claim under commercial auto
policy for amount less than economic damages. |
| Ohio
federal court |
Judy
L. Redmon, Executor of the Estate of Shelby Ann
Lust, et al. |
Successfully
mediated wrongful death claims for fraction of analogous
wrongful death verdicts. |
| Ohio
federal court |
Karen L. Wical v. Timothy S. Ivins (dismissed) and The Sumitomo Marine
and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. , Case No. C-1-01-646 |
Successfully
defended binding arbitration of permanent disability
claim, resulting in favorable settlement. |
| Ohio
state court |
Continental
Casualty Company v. George Smirnoff, M.D., et al.,
Case No. 409225 |
Defended
multiple plaintiff bad faith claims, resulting in
settlement of all claims for less than policy limits. |
Oklahoma
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Oklahoma)
|
Bituminous
Cas. Corp. v. St. Clair Lime Co., 69 F.3d 547,
1995 WL 632292 (10th Cir. 1995) |
Absolute
pollution exclusion barred coverage for claims arising
out of workplace exposure to toxic substances. |
Pennsylvania
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Pennsylvania
federal court |
Coregis
Ins. Co. v. LaRocca, 80 F.Supp.2d 178 (E.D.
Pa. 1999) |
Summary
judgment granted under business risk exclusions. |
| Pennsylvania
federal court |
Coregis
Ins. Co. v. Bartos, Broughal & Devito,
37 F.Supp.2d 391 (E.D.Pa. 1999) |
Summary
Judgment granted under business risk exclusions. |
South
Carolina
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| South Carolina federal court |
Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 2:06-cv-03555. |
Represent insurer in litigation over coverage for remediation of construction defects. |
| South
Carolina state court |
Wade
v. The Mungo Co., et al. |
Represented
client in settlement of class action EIFS claim. |
Tennessee
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Tennessee federal court |
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of PA, Case No. 3:04 1065. |
Reached favorable settlement for insurer in litigation over coverage for Public Accommodation judgments entered against insured. |
| Tennessee federal court |
NGK Metals Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 1:04-cv-0056. |
Represented insurer in coverage dispute involving “personal and advertising injury” and allegations of trademark infringement in the sporting goods industry, achieving favorable settlement. |
| Tennessee
federal court |
Kemper
Indemnity Insurance Company v. Chattem, Inc., General
Star Indemnity Company and Admiral Insurance Company,
Case No. 1:03 – CV-264 |
Representation
of insurer against insured in insurance coverage
litigation involving claims of misrepresentation
and issues including application of “products”
exclusion arising out of multi-district product
liability litigation. |
Texas
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Texas
state court |
Westchester
Fire Insurance Company v. Stewart & Stevenson,
31 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App. 2000 |
Appellate
court entered a take nothing judgment in favor of
the insurer based upon the non-drop down endorsement
contained in umbrella policy. |
| Texas
state court |
Pak-Mor
Manufacturing Company v. Westchester Fire Insurance
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2001CH11027
(Bexar County, Texas 2002) |
Summary
judgment granted under business risk exclusions. |
| Texas
state court |
Westchester
Fire Insurance Company v. Manor Care, et al.,
(Bexar County, Texas 2001) |
Summary
judgment granted that anti-subrogation argument
raised by insured did not preclude recovery. |
| Texas
state court |
Richard
Weiser v. NEC Technologies, Inc., Case No.
98-29911 |
Represented
a notebook computer manufacturer in a nationwide
class action lawsuit involving claims of misrepresentation,
breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices. |
| Texas
state court |
Oleta
Aaron, et al. v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 98B-51, 3rd Judicial District
Bonnie
Conner, et al. v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 97-115, 3rd Judicial District
Troy
E. Abbott, et al. v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 97A-256, 173rd Judicial District |
Represented
several multi-national corporations in a mass toxic
tort case involving more than 2,500 plaintiffs. |
| Houston |
Bell
v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company
(no court) |
Successfully
defended coverage issues under commercial auto policy,
resulting in settlement favorable to insurer. |
| Texas
state court |
American
Employers Ins. Co., v. The Gillette Company, et
al., Cause No. 2000-08-3368- D |
Successfully
represented client in insurance coverage dispute
arising from a myriad of bodily injury claims suffered
by former employees of a battery manufacturing facility
in Matamoros, Mexico. Our client’s defense
focused on the legal issues of the proper trigger
and allocation of damages for this loss. |
Vermont
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Vermont state court |
Shrewsbury Underwriting Capital v. Transfin Insurance Limited, Case No. 2:05-CV-199. |
Reached favorable settlement for insurer in litigation involving allocation of coverage for railroad crossing accident. |
| Vermont
state court |
Fireman's
Fund Insurance Co. v. CNA Insurance Company and
Sumitomo Marine Management (USA), Inc.; Case
No. SO497-00RcC |
Representation
of commercial excess umbrella insurer in dispute
with primary commercial general liability insurer
involving the determination of the priority of coverage;
summary judgment obtained in favor of client. |
Virginia
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
|
Virginia
state court |
Aetna
Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond, Fredericksburg
& Potomac Railroad Co., No. CL 96-86 |
Successfully
defended insurer in declaratory judgment action
involving railroad insured’s environmental
liabilities. |
Washington
JURISDICTION |
CASE NAME |
ISSUES / RESULT |
Washington state court |
Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. American Economy Ins. Co., Case No. 06-2-07083-1. |
Represent insurer in suit disputing coverage allocation for damages incurred by insured in underlying patent infringement case. |
| Washington state court |
The Boeing Company v. Certain Underwriters, Case No. 99-2-03: 73. |
Reached favorable settlement for insurance company in multi-state environmental coverage litigation. |
West
Virginia
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| West
Virginia federal court |
Liberty
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Triangle Indus. Inc., 765
F. Supp. 881 (N.D.W. Va. 1991), aff'd, 957
F.2d 1153 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 284 (1992) |
Summary
judgment in favor or insurer on grounds of pollution
exclusion and no “occurrences” within
meaning of policies. |
Wisconsin
| JURISDICTION |
CASE
NAME |
ISSUES
/ RESULT |
| Wisconsin state court |
Kimberly Campton v. Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co., Case No. 04 CV 7410. |
Defending insured railroad company against employee’s Federal Employer’s Liability Act claims. |
| Wisconsin state court |
NCR Corp. v. AIG Centennial Ins. Co., Case No. 05-CV-2102. |
Represent insurer in an environmental coverage case seeking coverage for PCB pollution and remediation in the Lower Fox River Valley. |
| Wisconsin
state court |
Alvarez
et al. v. Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry Co.,
No. 01-SC-1214, (Manitowoc Co., WI 2002) |
Obtained
defense verdict in environmental nuisance suit against
an aluminum foundry. |
| Wisconsin
state court |
Hensler
v. Ford Motor Co. (Jefferson County) |
Represented
foreign insurer named under direct action statute;
obtained voluntary dismissal after persuading court
that coverage issues were subject to arbitration under
Federal Arbitration Act and Convention on Foreign
Arbitral Awards. |
| United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin)
|
Wolf
River Country Co-op v. Wisconsin Central R.R. |
Defended
U.S. and foreign insurers in direct action litigation
arising from derailment, fire and evacuation of a
community. |
| Wisconsin
state court |
Johnson
v. SAG Environmental (Dane County) |
Successfully
defended environmental engineer in dispute regarding
hazardous material waste site. |
| Wisconsin
state court |
Inland
v. Torke, Wirth, Pujara (Milwaukee County) |
Represented
structural engineer in professional liability litigation
involving design of windows in commercial property.
|
| Wisconsin
state court |
Glatfelter
v. Wausau, et al. |
Currently
representing insurer in multi-million dollar environmental
coverage action. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Insurance
Coverage Litigation - Reinsurance - Commercial Litigation - Insurance
Policy and Contract Drafting - Professional Liability Analysis - Claims
Counseling and Mediation - Alternative Dispute Resolution
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
