Laura J. Hanson

Significant Cases: American Economy Ins. Co. v. Aspen Way, 2015 WL 5680134 and 2015 WL 7871337 (D. Montana 2015) aff'd (9th Cir. 2017)(insurers had no duty to defend ECPA claim against insured because exclusion applied, and insurers were entitled to reimbursement of defense costs paid); Cleveland Freightliner v. Federated Service Insurance Company, 2011 WL 2461862 and 2010 WL 395626 (N.D. Ohio 2010) aff'd (6th Cir. 2011)(Insurer had no duty to defend lawsuit against insured over faulty financing, misrepresentation and fraud, because underlying suit did not allege an occurrence or property damage); Whiteville Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 889 F. Supp. 241 (E.D.N.C. 1995) aff'd 87 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996)(no coverage for environmental contamination caused by petroleum release under the personal injury coverage provisions of general liability policy); Application of Crown CoCo., Inc., 458 N.W.2d 132 (Minn. App. 1990)(Minnesota Petrofund Board's decision that insured claims for clean-up costs were not reimbursable constituted an illegal rule); Boardman Petroleum v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 926 F. Supp. 1566 (S. D. Ga. 1995), appealed to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, certified to Georgia Supreme Court at 119 F.3d 883 (July 29, 1997)(certified questions include (1)whether the appropriate trigger of coverage for environmental contamination is manifestation or exposure; and (2)whether the owned property exclusion applies to bar coverage for contamination limited to the insured's site, where the insured, under Georgia law, owns the groundwater beneath its site). On Feb. 23, 1998, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled only on the second certified question, and held in Federated's favor that the owned property exclusion applied to bar coverage. Opinion is reported at 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492 (1998); Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959 (D.S.C. 1997) aff'd at 129 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1997)(court held on summary judgment that insured's claims for coverage under the pollution liability policies were barred by the statute of limitations, and that a subsequent claim at one site was not made within the policy period of the claims made pollution policy and was therefore not covered); A.J. Hall v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., (A.J. Hall I) 1996 WL 23368 (Tenn.App. 1996)(trial court ruled on summary judgment that there was no coverage under Federated's pollution policy, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that under a claims made policy limitation, an untimely claim will not be recognized even though the cause of the claim occurred during the policy period. ); A.J. Hall v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., (A.J. Hall II) 1996 WL 23368 (E. D.Tenn. 1995) aff'd 89 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 1996)(court granted Federated's motion for summary judgment holding that the term claim as used in the policy is unambiguous, a later third party claim made after the policy expired is not covered, and does not date back to an earlier claim for coverage); Kenefick v. Hitchcock, 522 N.W.2d 261 (Wis. App. 1994)(court of appeals affirmed trial court ruling in Federated's favor on summary judgment that there was no coverage under occurrence based policy because insured did not meet its burden of proof that property damage took place during the policy period, and there was no coverage under the claims made pollution policy because no claim was made during the policy period); Spartan Petroleum v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 393 (4th Cir. 1998) (decision issued December 17, 1998)(Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that property damage occurs when the underlying claimant's property damage takes place, not when the insured's damage takes place; court also held that when damages are allocated over multiple years, the insured is responsible for its proportionate share of damages during years in which it was self-insured)