Environmental / Toxic Tort

Addressing coverage for environmental risks.

The past several decades have seen significant litigation of insurance policy interpretation issues involving environmental contamination and “toxic torts” like asbestos, benzene, and silica, as well as mold-related first party property and liability claims. 
These claims raise issues such as:
 
  • Trigger in the long-tail context
  • “Drop down” obligations
  • Insured status of successor companies
  • Pollution exclusions
 

Our attorneys have been advising and representing insurers in relation to these types of disputes since the 1990s under primary and excess general liability policies, with both standard forms and manuscript provisions.

Each year brings new emerging environmental issues, recently including fracking, climate change, talc, and PFOS.  Our attorneys stand ready to handle old and new issues as they surface.

TEAM
EXPERIENCE
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurer regarding application of “unavailability exception” in environmental liability coverage case under Alabama law. 
  • Defended insurers in state court coverage action concerning $60 million dispute over CGL coverage for environmental mass tort claims, which included claims of bad faith.
  • Obtained defense decision at trial for primary insurer that it had no duty to defend or indemnify, and did not breach its contract or act in bad faith, in denying coverage for underlying environmental contamination claims.
  • Represented major insurance companies in multiple litigations concerning claims for coverage from primary and excess insurers for liability arising out of asbestos.
  • Obtained trial decision that insurance company was entitled to recover defense costs paid under reservation of rights pursuant to California Supreme Court's Buss decision.
  • Leveraged pollution exclusion into successful resolution of declaratory judgment action against municipality over coverage for class actions involving county-wide sewage back-up claims.
  • Won jury verdict for excess insurers finding they had no obligation to pay for environmental contamination arising from dry cleaners' operations.
  • Assisted client in successfully resisting insured's challenge of coverage denial involving significant environmental damage caused by train derailment, based upon application of pollution exclusion, even though insured's responsibility was limited to manufacture of an allegedly defective railcar axle.
  • Achieved favorable resolution of a coverage claim arising out of a scrap metal company's alleged liability to the EPA for cleanup costs at a Superfund site.
  • Obtained insurer's dismissal from CERCLA action; plaintiff was unable to produce copies of missing policies and we successfully introduced underwriting evidence that policies were issued to an insured that was not liable under CERCLA.
  • Obtained summary judgment for excess insurer on grounds that no single asbestos claim exceeded the underlying each-occurrence liability limits.
  • Successfully asserted pollution exclusion and other policy provisions precluding coverage with respect to underlying lawsuit involving allegations that the insured's oil and gas explorations and production activities contaminated plaintiff's property.
  • Secured ruling that insured was collaterally estopped from relitigating issues decided by Illinois court.
  • Successfully asserted application of continuous trigger to asbestos-in-building claims; court held that all such claims arose out of a single occurrence and horizontal exhaustion applied to all primary policies.
  • Obtained summary judgment for insurer on grounds environmental response costs do not constitute "damages."
  • Obtained summary judgment for insurer on grounds potential occurrence took place outside policy period.
  • Obtained Motion to Dismiss on stay coverage action because of prior pending action denied.
INSIGHTS