Oregon Duty to Defend is Very Broad, as Shown in Two New Cases

Two new decisions from federal courts in Oregon demonstrate just how broad an insurance company's contractual duty to defend its insured truly is.  These decisions should be helpful to policyholders in fighting back against denials of coverage.  Wrongful denials of defense are unfortunately common in Oregon, due to the absence of a meaningful bad faith remedy for most breaches of the duty to defend.  But cases like these demonstrate that if an insured goes to court, more often than not the insured will win.  That may dissuade some insurers from making the wrong decision when it comes to defending.

In the first case, Portland General Electric v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., the issue was whether it was appropriate for the court to read an underlying complaint as implying a fact, even though the complaint did not allege the fact directly.  The court said "yes."

Portland General hired a contractor to work on some of its equipment.  The contractor was required to add Portland General as an "additional insured" on its liability policy.  When one of the contractor's employees was injured on the job, he sued Portland General.  (He could not sue his employer, the contractor, because of the workers-compensation exclusive-remedy bar).  Portland General demanded that the contractor's insurer, Liberty Mutual, provide it with a defense.  Liberty Mutual refused, citing Oregon's anti-indemnity statute.  To put it in simple terms, because of the anti-indemnity statute Liberty Mutual could not insure Portland General for Portland General's own negligence.  However, Liberty Mutual could provide coverage to the extent that Portland General were being held liable for the contractor's negligence.  But the employee's lawsuit didn't say anything about the contractor being negligent, making it appear (at least to Liberty Mutual) that Portland General was being sued only for its own negligence.

However, there were allegations in the complaint that some of the equipment chosen for the job was improper, and that clothing worn by the employee also contributed to the accident.  The complaint didn't say who provided the equipment or the clothing.  The court found that even though only Portland General was sued, and the complaint never mentioned the contractor, it was reasonable to infer that the contractor could have provided those items, and therefore that the contractor was at least somewhat negligent.  Because the complaint did not allege only negligence by Portland General, and alleged by implication some negligence by the contractor, the insurer had a duty to defend.

In the second case, Norgren v. Mutual of Enumclaw, District Court Judge Michael Simon took the unusual step of rejecting the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge (Judge Stacie Beckerman), who had ruled in favor of the insurer.  Judge Beckerman held that the insurer had no duty to defend a homeowner against a suit alleging that the homeowner's son assaulted another child, finding that the "intentional acts" exclusion applied to all of the claims against the insured, even to a claim entitled "negligent infliction of emotional distress," because the specific facts alleged all included some element of intent to act.  Judge Simon pointed out, however, that the complaint made other allegations that could be interpreted as alleging mere negligence - even though those allegations were conclusory, and more legal contention than statements of fact.  Judge Simon therefore found a duty to defend.

These two decisions take the famous phrase from Ledford v. Gutoski that in Oregon "any ambiguity in the complaint... is resolved in favor of coverage" and put it into action.  They exemplify the correct approach to Oregon duty to defend questions, which is to scour the complaint for potentially covered claims, rather than generalize about the allegations.  In each case the court rigorously analyzed every contention in the complaints, and resolved every ambiguity in favor of a defense obligation.  It can only be hoped that these two new rulings will help insurers understand that they take a considerable chance if they deny a defense, and that the better course, whenever there is any doubt, is to comply with their contractual defense obligations.

Oregon Environmental Coverage Decision Emphasizes Importance of Early Tender

A new decision from the Oregon federal court emphasizes the need to tender any kind of potentially covered claim as early as possible.  The decision was, by and large, a win for the policyholder, but as noted at the end of this post the court carved out a large chunk of costs based on the timing of notice.

The decision, issued on October 28, 2014, came from Magistrate Judge Stewart in the long-running coverage dispute between Siltronic Corporation and its primary layer and excess carriers over costs for both cleanup of some of Siltronic's property within the Portland Harbor Superfund Site ordered by DEQ, and defense against the EPA claims at the Harbor.  The claims against Siltronic involved both contamination of soil, and river sediment, by TCE and MGP (Manufactured Gas Product).  Siltronic had seven potentially applicable policies, from 1978 through 1986, with Wausau as primary and Granite State as excess.  Wausau initially provided Siltronic with a defense under policies from 1980 through 1986, until Judge Stewart held that Wausau could stop defending the company because the primary insurer had paid to clean up TCE contamination and in so doing exhausted those six years of coverage.  Siltronic's excess layer carrier has been paying to defend the company since then.

The issue presented for Tuesday's ruling was what to do with the 1978 - 1980 policy.  Wausau had not been defending under that policy because Siltronic had not produced TCE until 1980, and Wausau contended that Siltronic had not tendered defense of  the MGP contamination.  Judge Stewart rejected that contention, noting that the DEQ letters and orders relating to the cleanup and included both MGP and TCE, and that therefore under the "eight-corners rule" in which the court only looks to the "four corners" of the policy and the "four corners" of the complaint (or equivalent), the tender had included MGP.  Wausau also contended that it had no duty to defend under the 1978 policy because Siltronic had not actually incurred costs to defend against MGP-related liability, because NW Natural Gas, the successor to the prior owner of the MGP-contaminated site, had agreed to pay for cleanup.  However, the evidence did not clearly establish that Siltronic had no potential future liability for the MGP contamination due to the agreement with NW Natural.   Questions about whether Siltronic had incurred defense costs related to MGP were questions for trial on damages, according to the ruling.

The court did exclude from consideration, however, a seemingly large chunk ($450,000) of defense costs incurred by Siltronic relating to the contamination.  It appears that Siltronic did not tender the DEQ and EPA communications to any carrier until TCE issues came to light, which was a few years after Siltronic had begun incurring costs relating to MGP.  Judge Stewart held that under the "voluntary payments" provision of the policies Wausau was under no obligation to pay any pre-tender defenses costs.  This reading of the voluntary payments provision has become the accepted wisdom among Oregon's federal courts, although policyholders continue to challenge it.

The take-away is this: tender early, and tender everything that could be a claim or suit, and do not equivocate about seeking a defense.

WA Fed. Court Broadens When Insurer May Go Beyond Complaint to Deny Defense

In Allstate v. A.R., a late-July decision from a federal court -- the Western District of Washington -- the court held that an insurer may rely on facts outside the "four corners" of the complaint to deny the duty to defend if the issue is whether the plaintiff is an "insured" under the policy and therefore subject to an "insured-versus-insured" type exclusion.  In the underlying case a minor sued her mother for negligently permitting her to be alone with her grandfather, who abused the minor.  The mother's homeowner's insurance policy with Allstate had an exclusion for claims brought by another "insured" and defined "insured" to include any relative who "resided" with the insured defendant.  The underlying complaint did not specify whether the minor lived with her mother, although in fact the minor apparently did live with her mother most of the time, but also lived sometimes with her father, and with her grandparents.  Allstate investigated where the minor resided, and came to the conclusion that the exclusion applied.



In the coverage case the minor protested that Allstate was not permitted to go outside the "four corners" of the complaint and that doing so was bad faith.  The court noted that in Woo v. Fireman's Fund the Washington Supreme Court had held that an insurer can investigate facts relating to whether a defendant is an insured and rely on those facts in its defense coverage determination.  The court then extended the Woo reasoning to coverage Allstate's investigation into the minor's living situation, reasoning that the question Allstate was trying to answer was whether the minor was an "insured," and held that the exclusion did apply, and that Allstate had not acted in bad faith.



The problem with the court's reasoning, of course, is that Woo did not concern a policy exclusion, and Washington courts have held that an exclusion may not be the basis for a denial of defense based on extrinsic evidence.  The court's characterization in this case of Allstate's investigation as involving "insured status" is facile - what Allstate was really investigating was an exclusion.  And the court's extension of Woo to this situation is not supported by Woo's reasoning, which has everything to do with helping defendants get coverage.  Because of this flaw this case may be the subject of an appeal, so stay tuned.