Achieving prompt and efficient resolution for policyholders.
At Foley Hoag, our clients include insured businesses in disputes with property/casualty insurers. In coverage disputes, Foley Hoag represents policyholders—and only policyholders.
Our lawyers have won recoveries for our clients under commercial general liability, umbrella and excess liability, employment practices liability, professional liability and directors and officers liability policies. We also have successfully represented policyholders seeking recoveries under commercial crime and employee dishonesty policies, banker’s blanket bonds, fire insurance policies and precious metals “stock floater” policies. Our lawyers have extensive experience in asbestos and pollution insurance coverage.
The hallmarks of the firm’s practice are in-depth analysis of policy terms, expertise in the historical forms of policies, and appropriate and cost-effective legal approaches. In our experience, many, if not most, issues of policy interpretation can be resolved on summary judgment, saving you the inconvenience and expense of discovery and trial. In fact, we have had significant success in obtaining partial summary judgment requiring insurers to provide defense to policyholders, particularly in environmental insurance cases. We also favor the use of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, where appropriate, to achieve a prompt and efficient resolution of your insurance recovery disputes.
Representative Experience
The following cases provide examples of the types of cases we have handled for our clients:
- 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.
- 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 be reimbursed for substantial portions of the expenses incurred in addressing potential environmental liabilities.
- On behalf of our client, Smith & Nephew, Inc., we secured a reversal by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 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.”
- 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.
- Secured a district court judgment on behalf of our client Georgia-Pacific Corporation holding 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 but rather left the full $10 million limit intact. Decision affirmed by First Circuit Court of Appelas.
- Retained to appeal a summary judgment granted to an insurer on grounds that an “owned property” exclusion precluded 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
