Foley Hoag LLP

Representative Experience
Insurance Recovery Represents an electronics component manufacturer in litigation against numerous insurers arising from environmental contamination of over seventeen separate sites located in over seven separate states. Through those claims, we have obtained summary judgment requiring various insurers to pay our client's defense costs and prevailed at trial on both indemnification and defense obligations. We have also obtained settlements through which our client has been reimbursed substantial portions of the sums it has incurred in addressing its potential environmental liabilities. Represented a major utility company in litigation seeking to recover from its insurers millions of dollars in environmental remediation costs. Case settled after mediation. Represents an electronics component manufacturer in coverage dispute over environmental cleanup costs associated with a former manufacturing facility.
Retained by our client to appeal a summary judgment granted to an insurer because of an “owned property” exclusion, which precluded liability insurance coverage for the costs of cleaning up a heating oil spill. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision, agreeing that costs incurred to abate contamination of third-party property are covered, even if remedial work is performed on the policyholder’s property. The case is now widely cited to defeat the “owned property” defense under commercial liability insurance.
Secured a district court judgment holding on behalf of our client Georgia-Pacific Corporation. The holding stated that, contrary to the insurer’s contention, the cancellation of an umbrella liability policy after three months did not reduce the aggregate limit of liability of the policy from $10 million to $2.5 million. Rather, the full $10 million limit was left intact.
Since 1993, our lawyers have represented a public utility holding company in connection with environmental liabilities arising from past, non-utility operations. We successfully established the insurers’ duty to defend; and we have recovered millions in reimbursement of defense expenses.
In litigation in the California and New York federal courts, we obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of our client Fairchild Industries in litigation involving several polluted sites around the country in which the carrier asserted a defense of late notice of the claims
Asserted claims—on behalf of an electronics component manufacturer and against numerous insurers—arising from environmental contamination of over seventeen separate sites in seven states. Through those claims, we obtained summary judgment requiring various insurers to pay our client’s defense costs; and we prevailed at trial on both indemnification and defense costs. We also obtained settlements, which allowed our client to been reimbursed for substantial portions of the expenses incurred in addressing potential environmental liabilities.
Brought suit against numerous insurers—on behalf of our client Hoechst Celanese Corporation—for defense and indemnification of claims arising from environmental contamination at various facilities around the country. We defeated, and successfully opposed on appeal, a defense motion based upon supposed late notice, leading to a favorable settlement.
Presently representing a medical device manufacturer in major litigation in U.S. District Court in Memphis, Tennessee. The case involves coverage for numerous underlying product liability claims for alleged failure of prosthetic knee implants.
Served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. in a precedent-setting case regarding alleged environmental liability stemming from the wood-treating operations of a former affiliate. We won a $6 million judgment in a frequently cited opinion holding that the policyholder was entitled to recover “all sums” under each triggered policy, rather than merely a pro-rated amount.
On behalf of our client, Smith & Nephew, Inc., we secured a reversal by the Sixth Circuit of a district court opinion granting an insurer summary judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the insurer had a duty to defend our client, the policyholder, under the “personal injury” provisions of a general liability policy for an underlying action alleging the policyholder’s participation in a conspiracy to defame a self-styled “whistle-blower.”

Representative Experience

Insurance Recovery

Represents an electronics component manufacturer in litigation against numerous insurers arising from environmental contamination of over seventeen separate sites located in over seven separate states. Through those claims, we have obtained summary judgment requiring various insurers to pay our client's defense costs and prevailed at trial on both indemnification and defense obligations. We have also obtained settlements through which our client has been reimbursed substantial portions of the sums it has incurred in addressing its potential environmental liabilities.
Represented a major utility company in litigation seeking to recover from its insurers millions of dollars in environmental remediation costs. Case settled after mediation.
Represents an electronics component manufacturer in coverage dispute over environmental cleanup costs associated with a former manufacturing facility.

Retained by our client to appeal a summary judgment granted to an insurer because of an “owned property” exclusion, which precluded liability insurance coverage for the costs of cleaning up a heating oil spill. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision, agreeing that costs incurred to abate contamination of third-party property are covered, even if remedial work is performed on the policyholder’s property. The case is now widely cited to defeat the “owned property” defense under commercial liability insurance.

Secured a district court judgment holding on behalf of our client Georgia-Pacific Corporation. The holding stated that, contrary to the insurer’s contention, the cancellation of an umbrella liability policy after three months did not reduce the aggregate limit of liability of the policy from $10 million to $2.5 million. Rather, the full $10 million limit was left intact.

Since 1993, our lawyers have represented a public utility holding company in connection with environmental liabilities arising from past, non-utility operations. We successfully established the insurers’ duty to defend; and we have recovered millions in reimbursement of defense expenses.

In litigation in the California and New York federal courts, we obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of our client Fairchild Industries in litigation involving several polluted sites around the country in which the carrier asserted a defense of late notice of the claims

Asserted claims—on behalf of an electronics component manufacturer and against numerous insurers—arising from environmental contamination of over seventeen separate sites in seven states. Through those claims, we obtained summary judgment requiring various insurers to pay our client’s defense costs; and we prevailed at trial on both indemnification and defense costs. We also obtained settlements, which allowed our client to been reimbursed for substantial portions of the expenses incurred in addressing potential environmental liabilities.

Brought suit against numerous insurers—on behalf of our client Hoechst Celanese Corporation—for defense and indemnification of claims arising from environmental contamination at various facilities around the country. We defeated, and successfully opposed on appeal, a defense motion based upon supposed late notice, leading to a favorable settlement.

Presently representing a medical device manufacturer in major litigation in U.S. District Court in Memphis, Tennessee. The case involves coverage for numerous underlying product liability claims for alleged failure of prosthetic knee implants.

Served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. in a precedent-setting case regarding alleged environmental liability stemming from the wood-treating operations of a former affiliate. We won a $6 million judgment in a frequently cited opinion holding that the policyholder was entitled to recover “all sums” under each triggered policy, rather than merely a pro-rated amount.

On behalf of our client, Smith & Nephew, Inc., we secured a reversal by the Sixth Circuit of a district court opinion granting an insurer summary judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the insurer had a duty to defend our client, the policyholder, under the “personal injury” provisions of a general liability policy for an underlying action alleging the policyholder’s participation in a conspiracy to defame a self-styled “whistle-blower.”

Insurance Recovery

Contact

Related Services

Site Search

Spotlight

Resources