ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE & DEFENSE
Primary Contact Attorney: Carl E. Forsberg
Environmental issues are a growing concern throughout the United States generally and in the Pacific Northwest in particular. We have been involved in the majority of the large environmental insurance coverage cases litigated in Washington, and have the experience necessary to meet the challenges presented by heightened environmental awareness.
We represent various primary, excess and umbrella insurers in environmental coverage disputes, and our environmental litigation practice includes:
- In-state single and national multiple-site environmental coverage actions involving first and third party policies.
- Defense of insureds’ claims alleging "toxic torts" and chemical sensitivity and exposure.
We have lawyers and paralegals with outside training and expertise in environmental-related areas. For example, our firm includes a former Compliance Director for the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Board, a former supervisor of The City of Seattle’s Environmental Legal Unit, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) attorney and individuals schooled in the scientific aspects of remediating contaminated sites.
Attorneys Who Practice in This Area:
Matthew S. Adams
Charles E. Albertson
Patrick S. Brady
Terrence J. Cullen
Carl E. Forsberg
Michael P. Hooks
Richard R. Roland
Roy A. Umlauf
Representative Matters:
Forsberg & Umlauf coverage attorneys were granted summary judgment on three separate motions in a mining entrepreneur’s claim for defense and indemnity coverage. (Robert M. Friedland v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., No. 2008-cv-3509, Denver District Court, Colorado). Plaintiff sought defense and indemnity coverage under excess CGL policies for approximately $20.5 million in indemnity costs and $28 million in defense costs related to liability for the construction, operation and eventual abandonment of the Summitville Mine in southern Colorado. The trial court granted complete summary judgment dismissal of the case while adopting Hartford’s arguments that (1) the plaintiff had already been made whole for the indemnity claim by settlements with other parties and insurers; (2) that Hartford had no duty under its policies to provide a defense to the plaintiff, or to reimburse him for his defense costs; and (3) that the plaintiff’s claims were excluded by the pollution exclusions to the Hartford policies.
In two recent environmental defense cases Forsberg & Umlauf attorneys successfully resolved potential high-value environmental cleanup claims under the M.T.C.A. asserted against separate environmental contractor clients by two major public entities, each with significant potential cleanup liability exposure.
In one matter, the firm’s client was released from a multi-party cleanup litigation after we successfully compiled and presented evidence at mediation establishing that expenditures asserted by the plaintiff as costs of remediation were non-recoverable as they were the result of a “private action” which did not meet the statutory conditions that the costs be the “substantial equivalent” of a Department of Ecology remediation.
In the second matter, our client was released from liability and the exposure to attorney’s fees and other costs of defense by entering into a nominal settlement. The result was made possible by this firm's aggressive pre-litigation negotiations with representatives of the public owner and retained environmental consultants.
