INSURANCE COVERAGE ANALYSIS AND LITIGATION
Primary Contact Attorney: Carl E. Forsberg
Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. represents and advises primary insurers, excess insurers, self-insureds, risk cooperatives, and other entities on the full spectrum of insurance coverage issues. We provide analysis, advice, and litigation services on matters arising from every type and every line of insurance.
Our work includes the evaluation and litigation of issues, including:
- Effective Reservations of Rights
- Duty of Defense or Indemnity Issues
- Additional Insured Questions
- Excess / Primary Insurer Relations
- Good Faith Claims Handling
- Exhaustion of Limits Considerations
- Construction Defect Coverage Disputes
- Multiple Occurrence and Trigger Evaluations
- Multiple Claimant / Insufficient Limits Situations
Our attorneys are skilled in providing not only technically correct advice, but also useful answers and approaches designed to assist claims professionals and to bring resolution to complex coverage issues. We bring clarity to insurance coverage questions.
Attorneys Who Practice in This Area:
Matthew S. Adams
Charles E. Albertson
Patrick S. Brady
Carl E. Forsberg
Nathan L. Furman
William C. "Chris" Gibson
John P. Hayes
Michael P. Hooks
Martin J. Pujolar
Richard R. Roland
Paul S. Smith
Sarah S. Visbeek
Representative Matters:
Our attorneys have represented national and international insurers in a wide range of coverage areas, including healthcare provider liability, liquor liability, automobile, homeowners, and general liability. See, e.g., National Clothing Co., Ltd. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 135 Wn. App. 578, 145 P.3d 394 (2006), rev. denied, 161 Wn.2d 1006, 166 P.3d 718 (2007).
Our attorneys represented a national insurer in an alleged multi-million dollar environmental coverage exposure involving radioactive contamination of a municipal sewer system.
We represented an insurer in a coverage and bad faith claim by an insured seeking coverage for damages related to a serious injury/fatality auto accident, on which we received summary judgment based upon restrictive language in the insuring clause.
We represented a national insurer in coverage litigation in United States District Court (D. Oregon) against an aircraft parts manufacturer's claim for indemnity coverage, in which our client received summary judgment finding the insured's pretreatment system was an "ordinary cost of doing business" necessary for compliance with regulatory licensing requirements and therefore not a covered indemnity cost under liability insurance policies.
