Our attorneys have been involved in environmental counseling and
litigation since the dawn of the modern environmental law era in
the early 1970s. Indeed, we have among our senior attorneys
some of the original employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, both in its Chicago Region V office as well as at EPA
Headquarters in Washington D.C. As such, our attorneys have
appeared frequently before the U.S. EPA, in informal negotiations
over remedial projects or rule-making and in administrative
litigation before EPA Judicial Officers and its Board of Hearings
and Appeals.
Senior attorney Richard Kuntz, has represented clients before
state-level environmental agencies and bodies including the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. He also served as a Special Assistant
State's Attorney to prosecute a claim by a County government to
recover the costs associated with the leaching of lead from a
courthouse roof, and defending the County against the state
EPA.
As you may know, with the maturation of environmental
regulation, more matters have been resolved at the state level in
recent years. But when the size or scope of a matter necessitates
U.S. EPA involvement, we are prepared to defend enforcement actions
in U.S. District Court, or appeal adverse rule makings directly to
the U.S. Courts of Appeal. We have also challenged ultra
vires agency action on behalf of affected clients when
necessary in ancillary proceedings, such as to quash a warrantless
search or improperly impaneled Grand Jury. So when insurance
coverage disputes first arose from the application of the new
environmental statutes and regulations, it was a natural
progression for our firm to blend the talents of our attorneys with
complex insurance coverage expertise, with those whose background
was formed in the environmental law battles.
Among our 25 plus attorneys are those whose environmental
practice can be characterized in one of three ways: the
representation of insurance carriers in complex coverage disputes
involving all lines in which environmental claims are implicated;
the defense of insureds on appointment from carriers when the duty
to defend has been assumed; and the direct representation of
commercial and industrial clients when coverage is not an
issue. Indeed, several of such clients have come to us directly
when insurance was not an issue, and later requested our
representation in other matters where an insurer has agreed to
defend.
With respect to environmental coverage, RSG has handled claims
and coverage litigation arising out of property damage, bodily
injury and Personal Injury (the latter asserted in
nuisance/trespass claims to avoid the pollution exclusion), under
GL, umbrella, excess, EPL/EIL, commercial auto, garage,
contractors, inland marine, cargo legal liability,
professional liability, and reinsurance facultative
certificates and treaties. Whether the cases involve trigger and
allocation issues for multiple sites under numerous CGL policies,
or claims for coverage under various types of claims-made or
first-party policies, our attorneys have litigated almost every
issue raised by such claims, in many jurisdictions and in state and
Federal Courts of Appeal.
Among the cases we have tried is Hercules Chemical Company
v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et al., Superior Court of
New Castle County, Delaware. This environmental coverage trial,
which lasted 16 weeks, involved claims of over $200 million with
respect to environmental contamination left from production of
Agent Orange. Our attorneys acted as lead counsel for a group of
carriers with a sudden and accidental pollution exclusion, and
after conducting the key expert examinations and cross-examinations
and making closing arguments, our clients prevailed before a jury,
a verdict sustained by the Delaware Supreme Court.
Most recently, we successfully resolved a large multi-party case
involving perchloroethylene groundwater contamination resulting
from dry-cleaning operations. We have handled numerous claims and
coverage disputes arising from underground storage tanks containing
petroleum as well as larger tank farms operated by chemical
manufactures; as part of the petroleum tank claims we have
successfully brought subrogation claims against State UST
reimbursement funds, which provide another source of recovery for
petroleum claims in most states, as well as a few states such as
North Carolina which provide for dry cleaning operations as well.
We are currently representing an insurer in a multi-million dollar
case in California involving numerous perc releases from
dry-cleaning operations, where issues of contractual indemnity and
coverage thereof under Vendors Endorsements are also at issue.