Absolute Pollution Exclusions Are Not Absolute

Insurance is a crucial source of funding for most environmental cleanups. For the past 30 years, comprehensive general liability insurance policies have uniformly included an "absolute pollution exclusion" in some form or another. The earliest such exclusions appeared in the 1950's, but they became ubiquitous boilerplate in the mid-1980s. As a result, most applicable environmental coverage is found in policies pre-1985, and many policyholders incorrectly assume that their post-1985 policies provide no such coverage. This assumption stems from a string of court decisions finding that absolute pollution exclusions eliminate coverage for traditional industrial pollution under Oregon law. Martin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 146 Or. App. 270, 275-80, 932 P.2d 1207 (1997); Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. W. Or. Wood Prod., Inc., 268 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2001). While absolute pollution exclusions are broad, and often do exclude pollution from traditional sources, they do not eliminate all coverage for environmental claims, and policyholders should thoroughly review each of their policies to determine whether coverage exists.

Most absolute pollution exclusions are incorporated into standardized forms and use language originally written by the Insurance Services Office (the "ISO"). The ISO's pollution exclusion, which is widely referred to as the "absolute pollution exclusion," actually expressly creates coverage in certain circumstances. For example, the ISO's exclusion does not apply if contamination results from a "hostile fire" or from a failure of equipment used to heat, cool, or dehumidify a building. While the factual scenarios in which express coverage is created are limited, a policyholder should determine whether any such scenarios apply. Even if only part of the environmental claim falls within the scope of express coverage, the insurer may be required to provide a full defense under Oregon law. While the scenarios where coverage is expressly not excluded are few, it is important to review each such scenario at the outset to ensure that no coverage is missed.

Another important analysis is whether the environmental claim involves a pollutant as defined by the policy. If the contamination does not result from the release of a "pollutant," the exclusion typically will not bar coverage. The ISO exclusion includes a very broad definition of what constitutes a pollutant. While many courts have given the term "pollutant" a very broad interpretation, other courts have interpreted "pollutant" to include only traditional or inherently dangerous contaminants. MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 31 Cal. 4th 635, 73 P.3d 1205, 3 Cal Rptr. 3d 228 (2003); In re Hub Recycling, Inc., 106 B.R. 372 (D.N.J. 1989). Determining whether a released substance is a pollutant often requires a review of how the substance was used and how it has impacted the property. While many courts have addressed whether commonly applied products, such as pesticides, can be considered pollutants, many of these questions remain unanswered under Oregon law. If contamination has resulted from something other than the accidental release of a regulated substance, a policyholder may have coverage despite the inclusion of an absolute pollution exclusion by showing that the substance is not a "pollutant."

Policyholders also need to be on the lookout for policies that include purported absolute pollution exclusions that do not utilize standardized ISO language. While most policies include standardized ISO exclusions, some insurers have used individualized exclusions that apply less broadly. For example, some of the early insurer-specific absolute pollution exclusions apply only to releases into waterbodies or to claims brought by government authorities. In these cases, coverage remains in place for releases onto land or claims brought by corporations. Insurer-specific absolute pollution exclusions are most commonly found in policies from the 1980s, but a policyholder may run into them at any time.

While absolute pollution exclusions often leave an insured without coverage, they are not as ironclad as their name suggests. The policyholder facing an environmental claim should retain coverage experts as soon as possible to determine which policies create coverage, including those policies that include purported absolute pollution exclusions.
           

Oregon District Court Provides Clarification on Environmental Coverage Issues

In the most recent opinion in the ongoing Marine Group litigation, Judge Acosta clarified two issues that recur in complex environmental insurance litigation: first, which party has the burden of proving that incurred defense costs were reasonable and necessary; and second, whether an insured can recover pre-tender defense costs.

Burden of Proving Reasonableness and Necessity

The issue of which party has the burden of proving, or disproving, that incurred defense costs were reasonable and necessary was addressed in Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. In that case, Judge Hernandez endorsed California's rule by holding that when" the insurer has breached its duty to defend, it is the insured that must carry the burden of proof on the existence and amount of the site investigation expenses, which are then presumed to be reasonable and necessary as defense costs, and it is the insurer that must carry the burden of proof that they are in fact unreasonable or unnecessary." Under the clear language of the Ash Grove opinion, a breaching insurer must prove the defense costs to be unreasonable and unnecessary, after the insured proves their existence and amount. Despite holding that this burden-shifting rule applies, Judge Hernandez's application of the rule was unclear, and several breaching insurers have questioned whether they do indeed have the burden of proving defense costs to be unreasonable and not necessary.

This question arose in Marine Group through a complicated motion to compel in which the relevancy of various documents was in question. In ruling on relevancy, Judge Acosta found that it was necessary to establish who has the burden on the issues of reasonableness and necessity. Judge Acosta endorsed the position taken by Judge Hernandez: that when a carrier has breached its duty to defend, the burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of the fees shifts from the insured to the insurer. Thus, the insured's fees are presumed to be reasonable and necessary when an insurer has improperly breached its duty to defend. This is a win for policyholders, and should make it easier for insureds to recover fees when insurers have wrongfully refused to participate in a defense.

Another wrinkle in the Marine Group litigation is the presence of a paying insurer, Argonaut. Since early on in the defense, Argonaut has paid Marine Group's defense costs. Thus, most of the damages being sought are through a contribution action between insurers, and not a direct coverage claim. Marine Group, along with Argonaut, made the argument that since the claim is primarily a contribution action between insurers, the reasonableness and necessity of the fees was not at issue, but instead the issue is whether Argonaut acted as a reasonable insurer. Similarly, both parties made arguments under ORS 465.480(4)(d) that the common law of contribution was preempted and that the breaching insurers should be prohibited from questioning the defense costs incurred. Judge Acosta rejected this line of reasoning in holding that St. Paul could question the defense costs, but that it bore the burden of proving the fees to be unreasonable and not necessary.

Pre-Tender Defense Costs

While the Marine Group litigation primarily involves a contribution action between Argonaut and other insurers, Marine Group also has a direct contractual claim against its insurers for certain sums not paid by Argonaut. Some of these unpaid defense costs are pre-tender. In other words, they were incurred by Marine Group before it formally sent a letter to its insurers that detailed the claims faced and requested that a defense be provided.

Most states follow the rule that pre-tender defense costs cannot be recovered by an insurer; this underlines the importance of identifying, and tendering to, insurers at the earliest point of any litigation. Marine Group attempted to escape the strict application of the pre-tender rule by invoking the notice-prejudice rule, which does not allow an insurer to deny defense costs because of delayed notice, unless it can show that the delay caused prejudice to the insurer. Judge Acosta found the notice-prejudice rule to be inapplicable because the duty to defend did not arise until the tender occurred. Thus the court held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to pre-tender defense costs, because it applies only to covered claims.

Ultimately, Judge Acosta ruled that under Oregon law, pre-tender defense costs are not recoverable. This presents a particularly difficult situation for companies facing historic environmental liabilities. Typically, the only policies that cover historic pollution events were written before 1986. Many companies do not have readily available copies of these insurance contracts. Indeed, historic insurance archaeologists must often be retained to identify these policies. Judge Acosta's decision reinforces the rule that defense costs incurred while a party is looking for its insurance coverage are not recoverable, even to the extent that the delay does not meaningfully prejudice the insurers.

Oregon Environmental Coverage Mediation Program Launched

In 2013 the Oregon Legislature passed SB 814, which amends the Oregon Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act, a unique law regulating environmental coverage disputes.  Part of SB 814 required the State to set up a mediation program for such claims (and made a carrier's refusal to participate in mediation a prohibited claims practice).  That mediation program is now "live."  Here is the announcement from the State's ADR coordinator.

Mediation Case Manager (MCM) has been selected to manage the Environmental Claims Mediation Program established by SB 814 (2013.)  Under the terms of their contract, MCM begins offering environmental claims mediation services today, November 19, 2014.   MCM has established a program website that includes an initial list of qualified mediators and links to case initiation forms. That website is:  https://ecmp.mediationcasemanager.com/Site/index.html.     Additional program information, including the program rules effective October 31, 2014 , are available on the Department of Justice website at: http://www.doj.state.or.us/adr/pages/environmental_claims.aspx.  

We were honored to participate in drafting the regulations that set up this program and in helping select the vendor to administer this program, and are very pleased to see it up and running!

Implementation of Environmental Coverage Claims Mediation Program Underway

The recent amendments to Oregon's Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act (OECAA) included a potentially useful tool in the policyholder toolbox - one that could benefit all sides and the environment as well.  The amendments provided that an insured could demand that an insurer participate in a mediation over a broad range of environmental coverage disputes, and if the insurer refuses, that is a per se bad faith claims handling practice subjecting the carrier to increased damages.  The Oregon Department of Justice was given the responsibility for creating an environmental coverage mediation program including hiring a mediation service provider (MSP) to administer the program and writing regulations governing issues like qualifications and rates.  DOJ convened a public meeting of stakeholders this past Monday, December 2, in Salem, which was attended by insurers, policyholder advocates, and many representatives of the mediation community.  DOJ has also set up a website for the program which will track its progress.  There are a number of issues under discussion.  Let me know if you have thoughts that you'd like conveyed through the Advisory Committee that is being set up, and stay tuned.

Trial Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to New Provisions of OECAA

Today the trial court judge in the long-running environmental coverage contribution battle between Lloyd's and several other carriers for Zidell Marine rejected a constitutional challenge mounted by Lloyd's to one of the newest provisions of the Oregon Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act (OECAA).  This case has had many zigs and zags but to briefly sum up, Zidell sued its carriers for failing to defend it in a cleanup action brought by the state, both for defense costs and for the cost of the cleanup.  Several of the carriers including Beneficial settled with Zidell.  Lloyd's did not.  Lloyd's later was tagged in the coverage action (which itself has gone on for years with multiple trips up the appellate chain) for millions of dollars; Lloyd's then sued Beneficial and others arguing that those carriers did not contribute to the overall "pie" in proportion to their coverage.  In June of this year new amendments to the OECAA went into effect.  One provision of the amendments provides that a carrier that has settled with a policyholder in "good faith" is protected from a contribution suit by other, non-settling carriers.  Beneficial and the other defendants in the Lloyd's contribution case filed a motion to dismiss arguing that under that new provision, Lloyd's has no cause of action.  Lloyd's in turn argued, among other things, that a) the statute does not apply if there has been a "final judgment" in the underlying coverage case; b) the statute is unconstitutional; c) there are questions of fact about whether the Beneficial et al. settlements were in "good faith."  In today's decision the trial court held that there has been no "final judgment" in the coverage case between Zidell and Lloyd's, meaning that the statute applies, and rejected the constitutional argument.  She held, however, that there are some questions of fact and allowed discovery into whether the settlements were in good faith.  More appeals appear inevitable, so stay tuned.  However, this appears to be the first enforcement by a trial court of the new provisions of the OECAA, and the first rejection of a constitutional challenge to one of the new provisions, and it's certainly notable for that alone.

Insurer Gets Creative Seeking to Defeat SB 814 Independent Counsel Provision

Insurer CNA has filed its brief in the long running Schnitzer coverage litigation concerning defense coverage at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site and it's interesting reading.  The issue here is not the duty to defend per se, because Schnitzer's insurers are defending. The issue rather is whether the "independent counsel" provision of SB 814, the amendment to Oregon's Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act (OECAA) passed this last legislative session, mean that Schnitzer's insurers have to pay the full rates being charged by Schnitzer's Los Angeles-based environmental defense counsel.  So far CNA has been paying only what it claims is its ordinary "panel" rate for Oregon defense lawyers, which is a small portion of the hourly rate charged by Schnitzer's LA lawyers.

SB 814 contains a clause requiring an insurer to pay for experienced environmental counsel, which Schnitzer argues means whatever rates are charged by available experienced Superfund defense lawyers; since all of the lawyers with that kind of experience in Portland are already representing other entities at the Site, CNA must pay Los Angeles rates.

CNA makes the following arguments that I found interesting (and I'm paraphrasing heavily here): 1) the insurance policies (which are standard older GL forms) give it the absolute right to control the defense, and therefore the "savings clause" in the OECAA applies, negating the independent counsel provision; 2) SB 814 cannot apply to existing counsel that are already being paid by the insurance company because that would interfere with the Oregon State Bar's rules on conflicts of interest and attorney ethics, and the Legislature cannot overrule the Bar's rules.  The second point is the most creative, but seems a little thin at first glance.  The problem with the first argument is that Oregon courts have not directly confronted the scope of an insurer's right to control the defense - which CNA acknowledges by citing only out-of-Oregon cases in its brief.  But if CNA wins the day, that could spell trouble for anyone trying to take advantage of the independent counsel provision, not just those in Schnitzer's highly unusual situation.

Stay tuned, as they say.

Insurers Start Duking It Out Over Impact of SB 814 on Oregon Environmental Coverage Law

Ironically enough, the first attempt that I've heard of to take advantage of the new pro-policyholder provisions of the Oregon Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act (OECAA) was by an insurance company.  That effort, in the form of a motion to dismiss recently filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court Lloyd's of London v. Beneficial Insurance case, is here.  As I've reported in earlier posts, one provision of SB 814 (which went into effect in early June) added "contribution protection" to the OECAA.  To put it very simply, the provision has this effect: if insurance company A settles a coverage claim with the policyholder in good faith, and the policyholder also sues insurance company B over the same loss and wins, insurance company B can't then sue insurance company A for contribution, arguing that insurance company A didn't pay its righteous share of the loss, and insurance company B overpaid, so company A owes company B.  The idea behind the provision was to encourage insurance companies to settle these claims early, by removing the fear that they will then have to pay again if sued for contribution.

The Lloyd's of London v. Beneficial Insurance contribution case arises out of the Zidell "Moody Avenue" contaminated site (not the Portland Harbor Superfund Site).  Zidell settled early on with Beneficial, then went after Lloyd's, and tagged Lloyd's for a considerable amount (that litigation is still going, after having gone up the appellate court ladder several times, like the contribution case).  Lloyd's sued Beneficial for contribution.  Judge You, who has had this case at the trial level for some time, earlier ruled that because of the date of the DEQ enforcement action against Zidell, the OECAA does not apply to the case.  Beneficial is now trying to both undo that ruling, and assert that the Lloyd's claim is barred by the contribution protection provision of SB 814.  This motion is just the opening salvo.

I can't say I'm unhappy about insurance companies having to spend money on very good lawyers on both sides of a dispute that may help clarify how this new provision of the OECAA, and perhaps related retroactivity and constitutionality problems, will work out in practice.  Stay tuned, as always.