Insurance and Catastrophic Loss

Our insurance lawyers provide comprehensive representation for the litigation and management of insurance and catastrophic cases related to:

• All Risks--Including Flood and Earthquake
• Boiler and Machinery
• CGL
• DIC
• Directors and Officers
• Employment Practices Liability
• Environmental
• Errors and Omissions
• Fidelity/Surety
• Fire and Extended Peril
• Intellectual Property
• Marine and Inland Marine
• Sabotage and Terrorism

Our insurance attorneys represent leading U.S. and international commercial property, liability, and fidelity/surety insurance companies, including:

• Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company
• Chubb Insurance Group
• Commonwealth Insurance Company
• FM Global
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
• One Beacon Insurance Company
• Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company
• Starr Technical Risks Agency, Inc.
• Swiss Re
• The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company
• Underwriters at Lloyd’s
• Zurich Global Energy

Admiralty and Maritime

• American Steamship Company v. Hallett Dock Company, et al.: Jury verdict of $4,682,322.55 in U.S. District Court for partially sunken and damaged ship in Duluth, Minnesota. Client awarded 100% of damages for repairs and lost business income with additional $2,398,888.54 in prejudgment interest.


• TBS North America Liner, Ltd. v. San Juan Navigation Corp.: Represented foreign company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and obtained a marine attachment order for 100% of the funds sought against another foreign company. Then, after a successful arbitration proceeding, obtained an order for the release of all previously attached funds plus certain costs and interest for client.


• State of Oregon v. Taiheiyo Kajun Co., Ltd., et al. (New Carissa), Circuit Court for State of Oregon 01(CV)0383 and Green Atlas Shipping, S.A. et al. v. United States of America (New Carissa), United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. CV01-156: Represented British insurers and Japanese ship owners against the United States and the state of Oregon in both federal and state trial and appellate courts in claims for the recovery of natural resource damages and business losses arising from the wreck of a commercial freighter.

Asbestos/Sick Building

• Obtained dismissal of $60 million asbestos removal claim for carrier through use of statute of limitations defense.


• Obtained dismissal of $40 million asbestos removal claim regarding manifestation of loss theory.


• DuPage County Courthouse: Obtained defense verdict for architect on “sick” building claim.

Bad Faith

• Mudlin v. Hills Materials Co. 742 N.W.2d 49 (S.D. 2007): The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld an insurer’s right to challenge fairly debatable insurance claims without being liable for the tort of ‘bad faith'.

Complex Coverage Issues

• Obtained multi-million dollar settlements in case against insurance broker for misrepresentation of risk during placement and in case against architect and engineer for construction defects.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer in a bad faith action where the court found the insurer’s conduct reasonable as a matter of law. The ruling was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds of the suit limitation clause.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract on the grounds of the “earth movement” exclusion.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds that the claimant lacked standing to sue the insurer.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of two property insurers sued in a negligence action for allegedly approving and designing a fire sprinkler system that accidentally discharged on the grounds that the insurers owed no duty of care to the owner or any third-party.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of property insurer sued for breach of contract and bad faith in a multi-million dollar mold remediation claim on the grounds that the insured's loss manifested before and was a loss-in-progress at the time the insurer's policy coverage began.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a liability insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds that the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the insured based on various provisions of the policy.


• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a product manufacturer in more than five different cases, all on the grounds that the undisputed facts demonstrated the manufacturer’s product was not defective.

Defense

• Orient Overseas Associates v. Westport Insurance Corp: Defended Westport Insurance Corporation against a bad faith claim related to storm surge damage from Super Storm Sandy. The New York Supreme Court, First Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court’s prior two dismissals of the bad faith count. The Court found that the allegations in the count were no different than those found in the breach of contract claim, despite allegations that Westport acted in bad faith when it delayed payment and allegedly misrepresented the application of flood deductibles and sub-limits. In striking Orient’s bad faith claim, the Court agreed that there is no cause of action for bad faith claims handling in New York, rejecting an effort to extend the precedent set in the oft-cited 2008 Court of Appeals decision in Bi-Economy Market v. Harleysville, (10 NY3d 187 [2008]).


• CFS Logistics, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance Company, et al. No. C.A. 12-217, R.I. Superior Court, Kent County (August 15, 2012): Represented American Motorists in a coverage dispute under an inland marine policy. The plaintiff alleged a covered loss during transit to a multi-million dollar piece of military equipment. Obtained an order from the bench dismissing plaintiff’s allegations under Rule 12(b)(6) and separate and final judgment dismissing American Motorists from the litigation.


• One Meridian Plaza Fire: Defense and multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for carrier and the tenant regarding Philadelphia high-rise, office building fire.


• Felman Production, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers, No. 3:09-0481, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112156 (S.D.W.V. Sept. 29, 2011): The Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of client on insured’s business interruption claim.


• Pentair, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. 400 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2005): Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of American Guarantee on a contingent business interruption claim.


• Seminis, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2008): The Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of our client, holding that the “growing crops” exclusion precluded coverage for research plants grown in open fields.

Flood/ Earthquake/ Blizzard

• Caraustar Industries, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co. Obtained summary judgment for Factory Mutual Insurance Company over claims of coverage for $22 million for properties damaged in September 2009. We prevailed by showing that our client’s all-risks insurance policy contained a flood exclusion and that the plain language of the policy provided no coverage. 


• Factory Mutual Insurance Co.: Recovered in excess of $16,000,000 for Factory Mutual Insurance Company and an electric utility company in a case involving the collapse of a dam and flooding of a power plant in Michigan. 
  
  
• Cortina Realty Trust v. Pacific Insurance Co. LTD, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 461 (2010): Obtained summary judgment for insurance client in a lawsuit over whether an insurance policy’s flood exclusion precluded coverage for flooding exacerbated by the decision of a neighboring town to open a flood valve.


• Northridge California Earthquake: Represented carriers in numerous contexts, including code upgrade coverage interpretation, application of deductibles, coordination of multi-layered coverages, and measurement issues.


• North Dakota State University v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. 694 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2005): North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of HSB on flood coverage claim.


• Todd Shipyards v. Westport Insurance Corp. 111 Fed. Appx. 534 (9th Cir. 2004): Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in Nisqually earthquake case.

Food Contamination

• Lund Food Holdings E. coli Contamination: Achieved confidential recovery for Lund Food Holdings in the E. coli O157:H7 contamination litigation after recall of ground beef and hundreds of reports of contamination and illness. 


• Schwan’s Salmonella Outbreak: Multi-million dollar recovery for Schwan’s Sales Enterprises after the 1994 nationwide Salmonella Enteritidis contamination and recall of Schwan’s ice cream involving an estimated 224,000 ill consumers. Also coordinated the defense of Schwan’s in the claims and lawsuits arising out of the ice cream contamination incident. At that time, this food contamination event was considered by The New England Journal of Medicine to be the largest U.S. common-source salmonellosis outbreak ever recognized.


• SuperValu E. coli Contamination: Multi-million dollar recovery for SuperValu in the E. coli O157:H7 contamination litigation.

Hurricane Katrina Claims

• LKBOC, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 06-1617 (E.D.La. Feb. 13, 2007): Obtained partial summary judgment for insurance client over the availability of lost rents insurance to downtown office towers for the period after the lifting of Hurricane Katrina evacuation orders and the restoration of utility services. The LKBOC case joins a growing list of cases in recent years finding that even in devastated areas the extended period of indemnity coverage found in many commercial insurance policies does not extend insurance coverage past the resumption of normal operations in the insured buildings.

Negligent Inspection

• Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bobst Group USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2004): Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of FM on negligent inspection claim.


• Lockheed Martin v. RFI, 118 Fed. Appx. 122 (9th Cir. 2004): Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Factory Mutual Research Corporation on third-party claim based on alleged negligent approval.


• Board of Regents: Established legal precedent in Minnesota that “sudden” in pollution exclusion has temporal meaning.


• Established seminal case law on reinsurance of declaratory judgment costs.

September 11 Claims

• World Trade Center Towers: Represented insurers for the Towers and WTC 7 as well as other buildings and businesses affected by the September 11 attack in litigation and appraisal proceedings.


• Clark County v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., No. CV-s-02-1258-KJD 2005 WL 6720917 (D. Nev., Mar. 28, 2005): Court granted summary judgment in favor of FM in 9/11 airport case.


• Cook County v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., No. 02 C 7023, 2004 WL 549447 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 18, 2004): Court granted summary judgment in favor of FM in 9/11 airport case.

Subrogation Recovery

• Boston Steam Explosion: Plaintiff’s jury verdict, affirmed on appeal, in a subrogation claim related to a steam explosion. Our client recovered $4.7 million from negligent third parties that caused the explosion. Due to interest, the recovery was more than 100% of the client’s claim payments.


• Hollywood Studio Fire: Obtained $5,800,000 settlement for subrogated insurer after winning liability phase of an inverse condemnation trial.


• Olympic Pipeline: Represented several foreign and domestic insurance companies in litigation arising from the Olympic pipeline rupture and explosion in Bellingham, Washington. As a result of the unavailability of the pipeline, Atlantic Richfield sustained business interruption and extra expense losses. The litigation involved the resolution of coverage issues with Atlantic Richfield and a subrogation action against the owner and operator of the pipeline. The subrogation case settled for a confidential amount a month before trial was scheduled to begin in federal court in Seattle.


• Dole Subrogation: Recovered over $6.5 million on behalf of Dole Foods, Inc. and Underwriters at Lloyd’s arising out of a fire at Dole’s plant in Yuma, Arizona.


• LaGrange, Georgia Fire: Recovery of over $99 million on behalf of property insurer and policy holder for fire.


• IRI/Malette: Obtained settlement in international arbitration of subrogation claim brought after fire against German manufacturer.


• Kentucky Utility Company Turbine Fire: Recovery following disastrous failure of turbine generator.


• Americold Fire: Multi-million dollar recovery from fire in 360-acre underground food warehouse for subrogated insurers and food companies. 


• Taiwan Fire: Multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for computer manufacturing plant damages.


• Northwestern (now Wells Fargo) Bank Fire: Multi-million dollar recovery for bank and subrogated carrier in Minneapolis fire.


• New York Explosion: Obtained multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for explosion of anechoic chamber during testing.


• Chicago Flood: Multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for department stores and their insurers.


• Pajaro River Flooding and Yuba River Flooding: Obtained verdicts on behalf of subrogated insurers and against public entities for multimillion-dollar flood losses in Northern California.

Unique Problems

• Alliance RICO Litigation: RICO recovery of over $12 million judgment for insurer based on insurance fraud and conspiracy. 


• Willowridge Litigation: Recovered over $7 million for excess insurer against primary carriers in a contribution and indemnity action for repayment of defense fees and indemnification paid to insureds arising out of the Alliance insurance fraud and conspiracy.


• Y2K: Obtained summary judgment and appellate court affirmance that property insurance policies do not cover the cost of making the insured’s systems Y2K compliant.


• Chicago Board of Trade: Dismissal of bond claim in case involving Chicago broker and German brokerage house in fidelity claim.

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.