THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
-
Upload
acelitigationwatch -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
1/33
EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
2/33
F I LE D
CLA LLAM COUNTY
2
3
a
I I E G E W E
FEB 2 7 2015
1NSURANCE
C p M M 1 S S t O N E R
jAN 12 Z015
B A R B A R A C H F 3 6 S T E N S E N C L E R 4 C
S
G
7
8
9
1
I1
12
1 3
1 4
F
5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
2
21
22
23
24
25
IN TI-iE SUPERIOR COURT OF TI;IE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY Or CLALLAM
'1'HE PORT OF POR7' ANGrLES,
a Washington municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
V
~
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,
LONDON AND CERTA.IN
LONDON
MARICET' COMPANIES, BRI'I'ISH LAW
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
COMMERCIAL IJNION ASSURANCE
COMPANY P,L.C., CONTINENTAL
ASSURANC,k: OF I.,ONDON, LTD.,
EDINBURGI-i ASSURANCE COMPANY,
L.TD., EDINBURGI-i ASSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD. NO, 2, EDINBURGH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, L'1'I). N0. 3,
EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY, L'1'D.,
INDEMNITY MARINE INSURANCL
COMPANY, LTD. T A/C, INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, LA
RCUNION FRANCAISE S.A.
D'ASSURANCES ET DES
ItEASSURANCES, LA REUNION
FRA.NCAISE S.A. D'ASSURANCES ET
DES REASSUR-ANCES PL A/C,
PORT OF PORrI' ANGELES'
COMPLAIN`i' FOR DAMAGES AND
DECLARATORY JUDGMEN'1'
T E IE;NADi.f:[t LAW GROUPi>i,i,c
PACIfIC EiUIL.11ING
720 Third Avcuuc, Suitc 1400
SLA I`CLL:, WASHING'I 'ON 48104
206•621 1433
OR'.C'S COMPLAINT - I
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
3/33
LII3ER I Y M UTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, NORTHERN ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., NORTI-IERN MARITIML
INSURANCE COM PA.NY, LTD., OCLAN
MARINL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
0C1;AN M ARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD. T A/C, ONEBEACON
INSURANCE COMPANY, PHOENIX
ASSURANC I: PUI3I.IC COM PANY LT D.,
PROVINCIAI., INSURANCE CO MPANY,
LTD., 'I'HRI:ADNErDLE INSURANCE
COMPANY , THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY
The Port of Port Angeles (the "Port"), by and tlirougli its attorneys, by way of
complaint alleges as follows:
INTRODU TION
1
This is an action for (a) contract damages based on the defense and
indeninifieation provisions of the liability insurance policies sold by the defendants and/or
their predecessors in interest to the Port, sucll damages consisting of property damage
including environ>nental response costs irleurred by the Port in respond'zng to alleged
enviroiimental contamination at the MTA Sitc, K Ply Site, and West Hat•bor Site
(collectively "sites") and other related activities; (b) a declaratory judgment adjudicating
the i•espective rights, duties, and obligations of the parties under the liability insuranee
policies sold by the defendants or their predecessors to tlte Port; and (c) costs and
attorneys` fces incurred by tlYe
Port in bringing this action pursuant to additional provisions
of law.
TIIE P RTIES
2. The Port is a Washington municipal corporation in good standing with its
principal placc of busincss in 1'ort Angeles, Washington. The Port is the owner of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 i
T'1- C NADLL'R LAW GROUP ri-i,c
PACII7IC LiIJIL.UING
920 Ttkird Avenue Suite 1400
STsATTLIi, WASI-IINGTON 98104
POR'I''S CQZvIPLAINT - 2 06-621-1433
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
4/33
ubstantial rcal property including property fronting on the Port AtigeIcs Harbor in
2
lallam Cotlnty, Waslaington,
3
.
hc defcndants ai-e insui•ance carriers, whicll at all times relevant to this
4
ction were engagcd in the business of selling primaly, umbrella an.d/or excess liability
5
nsurance polices.
6 .
n consideration of substantial premiums paid by the Port, the defendants or
7
heir predecessors issued prinlaly, umbrella and/or excess liability insurance policies to
8
he Port. Ccrtain Underwriters at Lloyd's, Lonclon and Ccrtain London Market Insurers
9 LMI ) issued primaly, umbrella and/or excess liability policies to the Port from 1966
10
hrougla 1988. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance issued primary, umbrella and/or
11
xcess liability policies to the Port from May 16, 1961 to 1969. Travelers Indemnity
12
olnpany ( 'f'ravelers ) issued prinlazy, umbrclla and/or excess liability policies to the
13 ort from 1969 to 1972. General Insurance Company of Anierica issued priinary,
14 . wnbrella and/or exeess liability policies to the Port fiom Januaiy 7, 1979 to 1982.
15
.
n iliformation aiid belief, Liberty Muttlal Insurarlce Coinpany ( Liberty
16 utual ) is the successor in interest to General Insui
arlce Company of Anierica. On
17
nformation and belief, Onel3eacon insurance company ( 4nel3eacon ) is the successor in
18 nterest to General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation.
19
.
xhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the
20 acnes of the defendants presently known to the Port and, to the extent the Port has
21
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
5/33
predecessors to the Port fi•om time to time, which are presently unlcnown to fihe 1'ort,
2
xhibit A may be amended as additional applicable policies are discovered and as the
3
urrently known states or countries of incorporation and the principal places of business
4
re determined.
5
IURISDICTION AND VENUE
6
.
1 his Court lias suhject matter jurisdiction over this declaratoiy judgment
7
ction under RC W 7.24.010, et seq. because a real and ,justiciable controversy exists.
8 uI•ther, this Court has.personal jurisdiction because the defendants or their predecessors
9
ach sold insurance to the Port in Washington.
10
. enue is proper in this Court pursuant to RCW 48.05.220 because a
11 ubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims brought in this action
12
ccurrcd in Clailam County, which is also the situs of the dainaged property that has giveli
13
ise to tlie liability alleged herein.
14
EIE POLICIES
15
.
rom at least 1966, defcndants or their predccessors sold to the Port cel•tain
16
rinlary, umbrella and/or excess liability insurance policies, including those policies set
17.
orth in I;xhibit T3, and possibly otliers ("Policies°). I;xhibit B, attached hereto and
18
ncorporated herein by rcference, sets fortll the applicable policy nuxnbers and periods of
19
overage foi
each defendant.
20
0.
I'he Port paid all premiums due and owing under the Policies and complied
21
ith all applicable conditions of cacli of the Policies.
22
HE ENVII20NMENTAL LIABILITIES
23
1.
ertain environmental liabilities have been asserted against the Port (the
24
Environmental Liabilities") by the federal and/or statc governments and\or other parties
25
TI-il:?NnDL1;R LAW GROUI'hl1c
t'AC:II'ic 13U11.,DING
720 fhircl Avenite, Suite 1400
SI=A7'11.13, WASI-IING 1'ON 98104
PORT'S COMPLAINT - 4
06-621-1433
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 5 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
6/33
1
collectively, the Environtnental Claimants ). These parties assert that the Port is liable
2
or the invcstigation and remediation of property damage resulting froin environmental
3
ontamination at the sites referred to by the Port as Marine Trades Area Site ( MTA
4
ite ), tlie K Ply Site, and the Western Harbor Sedimcnts Site, located in Port Angelcs,
5
Washington.
6
2.
hc Environmental Claimants allege property damage caused by among
7
thel• tliings, chemicals, minerals, waste, by-products and/or other substances (eollectively
8
I-Iazardous Substances ) allegedly produced, generated, deposited or disposed on property
9
wned or operated by the Port. The Environmental Claimants allege that the I-Iazardous
1
ubstances have damaged or threatcn to damage the groundwater, sediments, surface
11
aters, and/or natural resources, and that the actual or potential contaminatioti resulting
12
i•ona the prescnce of and migration of Hazardous Substances at or near thc sites
may
13
pl•esent an ilnlninent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare.
14
3.
he Cnvironmental Claimants souglit and still seek to require the Port to
15
nvestigate, monitor, survey, test and gather information to identify and evaluate the
16
xistence of property damage including daniage to the environment and danger to the
17
ublic hcaltli or welfare, and to remediate eiivironinental contaniination and property
18
amage whicli was uncovered.
19
4,
I'lie I;nvironmental Liabilities and the sums expended to date by the Port in
20
ontlectlon Wlth the Erivlronmental Liabilities fall within the coverage of the Policies
21
liich the defendants or their predcccssors sold to the Port.
22
5.
he dcfendants brcached obligations that they undertook in the Policies by
23
ailing to comply with Washington regulations regarding such matters, and by failing to
24
illfill their duties to timely investigate the Port's claims, determine coverage and
25
TE-IL NADLE,R LA W C;RCIUPrt.i.c
PACIPIC t3UtLDiNG
720 Tliird Ave nuc, suitc 1400
sLn 1`I LC, WAs1lING rON 98104
PORT'S COMPLAINT - 5
06-621-1433
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 6 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
7/33
1
ndemnify t.he Port for ccllain expenses it lias incurred as a result of the Environmental
2 II Liabilities.
3 rFENDANTS LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES OF SUIT
4
6.
n aecordancc with the poliey terms and conditions, the Port notified the
5 efendants and/or their predecessors of claims with respect to certain insurance policics.
6
7. n responsc to the Port's claim for its environtnental liabilities at the MTA
7
ite, 'Travelers denied coverage. The MTA site was later divided into two sites, the MTA
8 ite and the K Ply site. Travelers has not Lnade a coverage determination with respect to
9
he K Ply site. The retnaining defendants accepted the Port's tender of the defense of
its
1 0
nvironmental liabilities at the MTA site and the K Ply site under reservations of rights,
1 1
ncli+ding thc rights to deny coverage and to seel< reimbursement of payments made to or
12
n the POrt's behalf. Despite being provided notice of the Port's claims more thaii twenty
13
ears ago, these defendants have failed to make coverage deternlinations regarding their
14
indemnity obligations with respect to the MTA and K Ply sites. In response to the Port's
15
lairn fol• its environmental liabilities at the Wcstern Harbor site, all of the defendants
16
ccepted the Port's tender of defense under reservations of rights, including the riglits to
17 cny coverage and to seek reinibursement of payments made to or on tiie Port's behalf
18
lespite being provided notice of the Port's claims inore t11an three years ago, all of the
1 9
efendants have failed to nlake coverage determinations regarding their indemnity
20
bligations with respect to the Western 1-larbor site. All of the defendants have breached
21
heir enhanced duty of good faith to their insured by failing to promptly conduct an
22
dequate and reasonable investigatioli, by failing to niake a coverage determination, and by
23
iving greater consideration to their own interests than those of their insured
24
8.
he Port was foreed to bring this lawsuit to obtairl the benefits o£ its
25
Tl IE NADL,GR LAW GROUPri,i.c
P AC IF IC I IUILDINC 3
720 9 Itird Avenue, Suile 1 400
SL•:nT i1.E, WASH1 NG rON 98104
206-621•1433
OR I''S COMPLAINT - 6
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 7 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
8/33
1
nsurance policies issued by the dcfendants because the defendants breached their
2
bligations to investigate, defend, and/or inderruiify the Port pursuant to the terms of the
3
olicies.
4
IRST CL IM FOR RELIrF
5
Damages)
6 9.
1 he Port incol
porates the allegations of paragraplls 1 tlu•ough 18, as if fully
7
et folrth herein.
8
0.
he Port was required to expend, and continues to bc required to expend
9
ubstantial sums to respond to the Environmental Liabilities. I'he Port's response costs
1
nclude, but are not limited to, the cost to investigate and respond to the )
nvironmental
11
iabilities.
12
1.
he defendants assumed duties pursuant to the Policies to deferid the Port
13
nd to indemnify it fol
certain costs and liability incurred by reason of the Environmental
14
iabilities. By denying coverage, by failing to pay all of the Port's response costs, and/or
15
y failing to make a coverage determination, the defendants llave breached these dtlties. ,
16
FCOND CLAZM FO R RELIFF
17
Declaratory ReIieQ
18
2.
he Port incorporates the allegations of paragraphs I lhroug1121, as if fillly
19
et forth herein.
20
3.
he Port assei
ts that the defendants have obligations to defend and
21
ndemnify the Port and to pay in full the costs which are being incurred and wliieh will
22
ontinue to bc incurred by the Port in connection with the Environmental Liabilities. By
23
ts coverage denial witli respect to the M1'A site, and by its failure to malce a coverage
24
eterminatiolt with respect to thc K Ply and Western Harbor site, Travelers denies that it is
25
PHE NAI)1.ER L,AW GROUPi>u.c
i'ACII'IC [3UIi.DING
720 1 hird Avenue, Suile 1400
SI.iATTLE, VdASHING'rolJ 98104
PORT'S COMPLAINT - 7
06-621-1433
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 8 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
9/33
1 I bound by the obligations asserted by the Port. By their failure to make a covel•age
2
etermination, the remaining dcfendants also deny that they are bound by the obligations
3
sserted by the Port with respect to all the sites.
4 4.
ccordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy presently exists between
5
he Port and the defendants as to the defendants obligations to defend and to pay the costs
6
rising out of the Environmental Liabilities.
7
IIIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8
Attoriiey Fees)
9
5.
he Port incorporates thc allegations of paragraphs I through 24, as if fully
10 et forth herein.
11
6.
s a consequence of the Port having to bring suit to obtain the benefits of its
12
nsurance coverage under the Policies, the defendants are liable to thc Port for its
13 easoiiable attorney fees and costs in bringing this suit.
14
EOUEST FOR RELIEF
15
hereforc, the Port of Port Angeles requests relief as follows:
16
.
or judgnient in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
17
everally, awarding damages in an alnount sufficient to conlpensate the Port for alI costs,
18
ees, and expecises incurred in responding to and defending the Environmental Liabilities
19 liroiugli the date of tl•ial in this action.
20
.
or a deciaratoiy judgment confirming the defendants joint and several
21
bligafiion to defeiid and indemnify the Port against all filture claims, costs, daniages, and
22 dverse judgments and awards arising fi•om the Lnvironmental Liabilities.
23
. or a judgment in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
24
everally, for attorneys fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action; for prejudgment
25
TI-16 NAULI:R LAW GRO tJPt11.LC
PACIFIC RUfLI)ING
720 1 hird Avcnue, Suito 1400
SGIATTLE, WASf I ING rON 98104
206-621-1433
ORT S COMPLAINT - 8
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 9 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
10/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
and post judgment interest on all sulns awarded the Port; and for such other and further
relief as may be allowed by any provision of law or that this Court deems just and proper.
t
DATED this
ay of January, 2015.
I I-IE NAllLL;R LAW GROL JP PL.I_.0
I V j a r k
N.
Nacller,
W NliA No. 1zs 126
Liberty Waters, WSIIn No. 37034
John S. Dolese, WSB A N o. 1801 5, of Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Port of Port A ngeles
12
13
14
15
6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rt-iENADL,ER LAW GROUPni.r.
I ACII IC Q UIL.DING
720 I hird Avenue, S uite 1400
SI:AT 1 LC, WASII INGTON 98104
PORT S COMPLAINT - 9
06-621-1433
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 10 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
11/33
EXHIBIT
Place of
rirtcipal Place of
Defendant Iixcorporation
usiness
13ritisli Law Insurancc Company, Ltd.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
Commercial Union Assurance Company
England
ondon, England
P.L.C.
Continental Assurance of London, Ltd.
England
ondon, England
r;dinburgh Assurance Company, Ltd.
rdinburgh Assurance Coinpany, Ltd. No. 2
I?d1nbLlrgh Assurancc Company Ltd. No. 3
Excess Insurance Cornpany, Ltd.
England ondon, England
Indemnity Marine Insurance Company, Ltd.
T
A/C
lnsuranee Company of Nortll America
La Reunion Francaise S.A. d'Assurances et
Erance
aris, France
des Reassurances
La Reunion Francaise S.A. d'Assurances et
des Reassurances PL A/C
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
I3oston
over, New
Massachusetts
-iampshire
Northern Assurance Cotnpany Ltd.
Northern Maritime Insurance Coinpany, Ltd.
Occan Marine Insurance Company, Ltd.
Ocean Marine Insurance Coinpany, Ltd. T
A/C
OneBcacon Insurance Conipany
-Iarrisburg
anton,
Pennsylvania
assachusetts
I N
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 11 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
12/33
Defendant
Plioenix Assurance Public Coinpany Ltd.
Provincial Insurancc Company, Ltd.
7 llreadneedle Insurance Company
1 he Travelers Indennnity Com pany
Place of rincipal Place of
Incorporation asiness
ITartford,
artford,
Connecticut
onnecticut
11-2
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 12 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
13/33
EXI IIBIT B
Port of Port Angeles Primlr y Covera ;e
Policy/ Cer•tificate No. Effective Dates
Insirrer
CG 366433 5
/
1 6/1961-5/16 1
962
General Accident I ire and
Life Assurance Company
CG 366712 5 1 6
962-5/16/1963
Gencral Accident Pire and
Life Assurance Company
CG 384259 5/16/1963-5/16/1964
General Accident Fire and
Life Assurance Company
CG 370877
5/16/1964-5/16/1965 General Accident Fire and
Life Assurance Company
CG 451052 5
6/1965-5/16/1966
General Accident i ire and
Life Assuranee Company
CG 450793
5/16/1966-5/16/1967
General Accident rire and
Life Assurance Conipany
GLA 36-728-14
5/16/1967-5/16/1968 General Aecident Pire and
Life Assuranee Company
GLA 37-758-04 5
6/1968-
5
1
6 1969
General Accident rire and
Life Assuranee Coinpany
650-2689023-IND
11/1/1972-11/1/1973
The Travelers Indeintlity
Company
650-188A227-9-IND
1 l/1/1973-1 i/1/1974 The Travelers Indemnity
Coinpany
650-188A227-9-IND-74
11/1/1974-11/1/1975
The Travelers Indemnity
Company
650-188A227-9-IND-78
11/1/1978-11/1/1979
The Travelers Indeinnity
Company
Cl 922901
I/1/1979-1/1/1982
General Insurance
Company of Ainerica
m
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 13 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
14/33
MC 5984
/1/1982-t/1/1984
ertain Underwriters at
Lloyd s, London
MC 6023
/1/1984-1/1/1988
ertain Underwriters at
Lloyd s, London
Pox•t of Port Aiiiieles Excess Coveragc
Policy/ Cei tificate No. ffective Dates
Insui•er
ST 13938
2/31/1966-12/31/1969
Certain Undex
writers at Lloyd s,
London and Certain London
Market Companies
ST 13937 2/31/1966-12/31/1969
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
London and Certain London
Market Companies
S I' 13934
1/18/1966-12/31/1966
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
London and Certain London
Market Companies
CtIP-189A750-A
l./1/1973-11/
/
974
'I'he Travelers Indezn.nity
Company
CUP-189A750-8-74
1/1/1974-11/1/1975
The Travelers Indernnity
Cornpany
JSL 1025
2/31/1977-12/31/1979
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
London and Certain London
Maricet Companies
JSL1070
2/31/1979-12/31/1980
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
London and Certain I,ondon
Market Companics
JS1_. 1091
2/31/1980-12/31/1983
Ccrtain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
I,ondon and Certain London
Market Companies
JSL 1142
2/31/1983-12/31/1986
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s,
London and Certain L.ondon
Market Coanpanies
13-2
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 14 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
15/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 11
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD'S, LONDON AND CERTAIN
LONDON MARKET COMPANIES,
BRITISH LAW INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., COMMERCIAL
UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY
P.L.C., CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE
OF LONDON, LTD., EDINBURGH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
EDINBURGH ASSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD. NO. 2, EDINBURGH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. NO.
3, EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY,
LTD., INDEMNITY MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. T
A/C, INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, LA REUNION
FRANCAISE S.A. D'ASSURANCES
ET DES REASSURANCES, LA
REUNION FRANCAISE S.A.
D'ASSURANCES ET DES
REASSURANCES PL A/C, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
DECLARATION REGARDING EMAIL TRANSMISSION
Re: PORT OF PORT ANGELES COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
NO.
DECLARATION REGARDING
E MAIL TRANSMISSION
GR 17(a)(2)
PLATT IRWIN LAW FIRM
403 South Peabody S t.
Port Angeles, WA 98362
360) 457-3327
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR CLALLAM COUNTY
THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES,
a Washington municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 15 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
16/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21 j
22
23
24
25
26
27
NORTHERN ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. NORTHERN
MARITIME INSURANCE COM PANY
LTD. OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. OCEAN MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. T A/C
ONEBEACONINSURANCE
COMPANY PHOENIX ASSURANCE
PUBLIC COMPANY LTD.
PROVINCIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. THREADNEEDLE
INSURANCE COMPANY THE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY
The undersigned SIMON BARNHART declares and states as follows:
1
On the 12`
day of January 201 5 I received the PORT OF PORT
ANGELES COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
via email transmission signed by M ark S. Nadler.
2.
I have examined the document to which this Declaration is attached and it
consists of 1 5 pages including this Declaration.
3.
It is complete and legible.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of W ashington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 12 t
day of January 2015 at Port Angeles Washington.
SIMON BARNHART
DECLARATION REGARD ING EMAIL TRANSMISSION
Re: PORT OF PORT ANGELES COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PLATT IRWIN LAW
IRM
403 South Peabody St.
Port Angeles, WA 98362
(360) 457-3327
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 16 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
17/33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
18/33
PFliEIVED
F £ 8 2 7 2 1 5
INSURANCE
C O M M f S S IO N E R
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR TIIE COUNTY OF CLALLAM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
21
22
23
24
25
'1'HE PORT OF PORT ANGELES,
a Washington municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
V
CERTAIN tJNDF..,RWRITERS AT
LLOYD'S, LONDON, ASSICURAZIONI
GENERALI S.P.A., BALOISE
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., BRITISI
LAW INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
BRITISII LAW INSURANCE COMPANY
L'TD. NO. 2 A/C, COMMERCIAL UNION
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE
COMPANY P.L.C., CONTINENTAL
ASSURANCI_; OF LONDON, LTD.,
EDINBURGH ASSURANCE COMPANY,
LTD., EDINBURGH ASSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD. NO. 2, EDINBtJRGH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, NO. 3,
EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE
COMPANY, I.,TD. T A/C, INDEMNITY
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD
T A/C, INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTI-I
NO. 15-2-00027-9
PORT OF PORT ANGELES' FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT
Tl-IL' NADLLR LAW GRUUPrt.l.c
Pacific 13uilding
720 Ttiird Avenue, Sttite 1400
Scaltic, Washingto» 98104
206-621-1433
Iwitlers(~ )nad I erlaivgrou p, com
ORT'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 18 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
19/33
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AMERICA, LA REUNION FRANCAISE
S.A. D'ASSURANCES ET DES
REASSURANCES, LA REUNION
FRANCAISE S.A. D'ASSURANCES ET
DES REASSURANCES PL A/C,
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, NATIONAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, NIPPON FIRE AND
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
(UK) W. LTD, NORTHERN
ASSURANCE COM PANY LTD.,
NORTHERN ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO. 6 A/C, NORTH ERN MA RITIME
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
OCEAN MA RINE INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., OCEAN MARINE
INSURANCE COMPAN Y, LTD. T
A/C, ONEBEACON INSURANCE
COMPANY, PHOENIX ASSURANCE
PLC, PHOENIX ASSURANCE PUBLIC
COMPANY LTD., PROVINCIAL
INSURANCE COM PANY, LTD., RIVER
THAM ES INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SKANDIA U.K. INSURANCE PLC T
A/C, SCOTTISH LION INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., THREADNEEDLE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
THREADNEEDLEINSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY,
WUTTEMBERGISCHE A.W. A/C,
YASUDA FIRE & M ARIE INSURANCE
CO. (UK) LTD., YASUD A FIRE &
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
(UK) LTD. T A/C,
Defendants
The Port of Port Angeles (the Port ), by way of complaint alleges as follows:
INTRODU TION
1. his is an environm ental insurance coverage action. Plaintiff the Port
seeks:
a.
declaration of the rights, duties, and liabilities of the parties under
THE NADLER LAW GROUP P[.Lc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED CO MPLAINT = 2
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 19 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
20/33
rimary, excess, and/or umbrella liability insurance policies issued by the defendants or
2 heir predecessors or reinsureds with respect to certain environmental liabilities incurred
3
y the Port for property damages in the form of environmental contamination and/or
4
lleged damage to natural resources;
5 .
amages for breach of defendants' contractual obligations under the
6
11 Policies with respect to certain environmental liabilities;
7
amages for bad faith, and Consumer Protection Act violations;
8 .
osts and attorneys' fees incurred by the Port in bringing this action and
9 ~I pursuant to additional provisions of law.
1
HE PARTIES
1 1
.
he Port is a Washington municipal corporation in good standing with its
12
rincipal place of business in Port Angeles, Washington. The Port is the owner and/or
13
essee of substantial real property including property fronting on the Port Angeles Harbor
14
n Clallam County, Washington.
15
.
he defendants are insurance carriers and/or successors for same, which at
16
ll times relevant to this action were engaged in the business of selling or managing
17
laims for primary, umbrella and/or excess liability insurance polices. Upon information
18
nd belief, none of the defendants are residents of or are domiciled within the state of
19
ashington, but all have transacted business within the state.
2
.
efendant The Travelers Indemnity Company ( Travelers ) is a
21
orporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal place
22
f business in Hartford, Connecticut. Travelers is, and at all times relevant to this
23
omplaint was, an authorized insurer in the State of Washington.
24
efendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ( Liberty Mutual ) is a
25
orporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its principal
THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seatt le W ashington 98104
2 0 6 6 2 1 1 4 3 3
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 20 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
21/33
1
lace of business in Dover, New Hampshire. Upon information and belief, Liberty
2 utual is the successor-in-interest to General Insurance Company of America. Liberty
3
utual is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, an authorized insurer in the
4
tate of Washington.
5
.
efendant OneBeacon Insurance Company ( OneBeacon ) is a
6
orporation organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal
7
lace of business in Canton, Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, OneBeacon is
8
he successor-in-interest to General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Company.
9 .
efendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain London
10 arket Companies (together London Market Insurers or LMI ) underwrote the
11
ondon Market Insurance policies at issue in this case. Exhibit A, attached hereto and
12 ncorporated by reference, sets forth the names of the LMI defendants presently known
13
o the Port and, to the extent the Port has knowledge, their states or countries of
14 ncorporation, and principal places of business. There may be other applicable policies
15
hich have been issued by the LMI defendants to the Port from time to time, which are
16
resently unknown to the Port. Exhibit A may be amended as additional applicable
17
olicies are discovered and as the currently known states or countries of incorporation
18
nd the principal places of business are determined.
19
.
efendant National Indemnity Company ( NICO ) is
a
corporation
20
rganized under the laws of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business in
21
maha, Nebraska. NICO is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, an
22
uthorized insurer in the State of Washington. Upon information and belief, NICO is the
23
ssumption reinsurer of and/or the successor-in-interest to certain of the LMI defendants,
24
ncluding Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, with respect to the London Market
25
nsurance policies at issue in this case.
THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLC
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle W ashington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 21 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
22/33
1 .
efendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London are comprised of the
2
ndividuals, referred to as Names and organized into syndicates, who underwrote
3
ortions of, or all of, one or more of the London Market insurance policies at issue in
4 his case. As discussed in more detail below, Equitas reinsured the liability of those
5
yndicates and Names, and under English law, Equitas has been statutorily novated for
6
he syndicates and Names with respect to the London Market insurance policies at issue
7
n this case. NICO is the assumption reinsurer of Equitas.
8
0.
n consideration of substantial premiums paid by the Port, the defendants
9
r their predecessors and/or reinsureds issued primary, umbrella and/or excess liability
10
nsurance policies to the Port. General Accident Fire Life Assurance issued primary,
11
mbrella and/or excess liability policies to the Port from prior to May 16, 1961 to 1969.
12
he LMI defendants issued primary, umbrella and/or excess liability policies to the Port
13
rom at least 1966 through 1988. Travelers issued primary, umbrella and/or excess
14
iability policies to the Port from at least 1972 to 1978. General Insurance Company of
15
merica issued primary, umbrella and/or excess liability policies to the Port from 1979
16 to 1982.
17
1.
ICO is liable to the Port for all benefits the Port is entitled to from certain
18
f the LMI defendants under the London Market policies at issue in this case. On
19
nformation and belief, NICO is also liable to the Port along with LMI for the bad faith
20
laims handling of the Port's claims.
2
URISDICTION ND VENUE
22 2.
his Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 2.08.010 and
23
CW 7.24.010,
et seq
Further, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
24
eclaratory judgment action because a real and justiciable controversy exists.
25
3.
his Court has personal jurisdiction because each of the defendants is an
THE NADLER LAW GROUP Pr.Lc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 5
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 22 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
23/33
1
uthorized insurer in the State of Washington and/or sold insurance to the Port in
2
ashington, or managed or reinsured policies sold to the Port in Washington.
3 4
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to RCW 48.05.220, because a
4
ubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims brought in this action
5
ccurred in Clallam County, which is also the situs of the damaged property that has
6
iven rise to the liability alleged herein.
7
URY DEMAND
8
5.
he Port hereby demands pursuant to CR 38(b), trial by jury of twelve of
9
ll issues so triable in this action.
10
HE PO LICIES
11
6.
rom prior to 1961, defendants or their predecessors or reinsureds sold to
12
he Port certain primary, umbrella and/or excess liability insurance policies, including
13
hose policies set forth in Exhibit B, and possibly others ( Policies ). The Port's claims
14
in this matter extend to any and all such additional policies as may become known to the
15
ort during the course of this litigation.
16 7
The Port paid all premiums due and owing under the Policies and complied
17
ith all applicable conditions of each of the Policies, including all conditions precedent
18
o coverage, if any.
19
HE ASSUMPTION REINSURANCE OF THE PORT S LONDON M ARKET
20
OLICIES
21
8. Equitas has been working since 1996 to achieve finality for the Names
22
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London) by extinguishing their long tail liability under
23
he 1992 and prior non-life liability insurance they underwrote ( Business ).
24
9. By written agreement dated September 3, 1996 ( Reinsurance and Run-off
25
ontract ), Equitas Reinsurance Limited ( ERL ) reinsured the Names by assuming all
THE NADLER LAW GROUP
PLLC
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle W ashington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 6
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 23 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
24/33
1
f the Names' rights and obligations under the policies and undertaking to administer
2 II the Business.
3
0. By separate written agreement dated September 3, 1996 ( Retrocession
4
greement ), ERL retroceded the liability for the reinsurance and administration of the
5
un-off Names' Business to Equitas Limited ( EL ) and EL assumed all of the Names'
6
ights and obligations under the policies and undertook to administer the Business and
7 Run-off.
8
1. By yet another separate written agreement dated November 10, 2006
9 Retrocession and Run-off Agreement ) EL retroceded its liability for the reinsurance of
10 RL and the Names, along with the obligation to administer the run-off of the Names'
11
usiness to NICO, and NICO assumed all of the rights and obligations under the
12
olicies and undertook to administer the Business and Run-off, all of which was subject
13
o the English Court's approval of the Part VII Transfer and certain other conditions, all
14
f which have come to pass.
15
2. The November 10, 2006 Retrocession and Run-off Agreement also
16
rovided that EL delegated responsibility for the administration of the run-off of the
17
ames' Business to Equitas Management Services Limited ( EMSL ) subject to the
18
nglish Court's approval of the Part VII Transfer and certain other conditions, again all
19 f which have come to pass. Equitas Holdings Limited ( EHL ) the owner of EL, ERL
20 nd EMSL, promised in the same agreement to transfer full ownership of EMSL to
21 ICO subject to the same conditions which have come to pass. The agreement required
22
ICO to change the name of EMSL to some different name which does not include the
23
ord Equitas . NICO changed the name of EMSL to Resolute Management Services
24 Limited.
25 3. urrently, NICO and/or Equitas have reinsured, indemnified, and assumed
THE NADLER LAW GROUP Pt,[,c
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 7
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 24 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
25/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 '
all responsibilities of the N ames to deal directly with insureds, to service and administer
the contracts of insurance, and to adjust and pay the insured's claims for all benefits
under the insured's policies.
24.
Equitas Limited has publicly proclaimed to the Names' policyholders (of
which the Port of Port Angeles is one such policyholder), that you will have no further
claims, as a matter of English law, against the Nam es who underw rote your policies at
Lloyd's. ... Instead of your claims against the Nam es you w ill have claims against an
FSA authorised company... Similarly, Equitas Holdings Limited has proclaimed to the
Nam es that ... no Nam e has any further liability whatsoever, under English law, in
respect of 1992 and prior non-life Lloyd's liabilities. ... In the unlikely event that
Equitas becom es insolvent, no policyholder with an unsatisfied claim w ill be able to
enforce that claim in any court of the EEA to recover it from any Name. ... Now that we
have achieved finality under English law, [Equitas] believe[s] `the long day's task is
done......
25.
Since at least 2009, NICO's wholly owned subsidiary (Resolute
Management) has serviced portions or all of the Port's LMI insurance policies and
served as the primary point of contact for matters related to the Port's environmental
insurance claims against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London.
26.
By operation of the foregoing, NICO and/or Equitas are the assumption
reinsurers of the Port (or are otherwise successors in interest to the Names and
Syndicates that underwrote the Port's policies), and thus are liable to the Port for all
benefits the Port is entitled to from defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
under the Port's London Market insurance policies at issue in this case.
THE UNDERLYING ENVIRONMENT L LI BILITIES
27.
The P ort has incurred, and w ill continue to incur, liability for third party
THE NADLER LAW GROUP Pr.t,c
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT' S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 8
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 25 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
26/33
property damag e to surface water, groundwater, sediments, and/or alleged dam age to
2 atural resources as a result of historical operations and the resulting environm ental
3
ontamination at the Marine Trades Area ( MTA ) Site, the K Ply Site, and the Western
4
ort Ang eles Harbo r ( Harb or ) Site (together referred to as the Sites ).
5
8.
he Port s environmental liabilities at the Sites arise out of occurrences or
6 ccidents that took place du ring the policy periods for each o f the Policies.
7
9. Third party property damage, in the form of alleged damage to natural
8
esources as well as contamination of groundwater, surface water, and/or sediments
9
ccurred during the policy pe riods for each of the Policies.
10
0.
he Port neither expected n or intended the releases or the resulting
11 roperty dam age at issue prior to the inception of the Policies.
12
1.
he defendants breached obligations that they undertook in the Policies by
13
ailing to comply with Washington regulations regarding such matters, by failing to -
14 romptly investigate the Port's claims, by failing to make coverage determinations, by
15
ailing to fulfill their duties to defend and /or indemn ify the Port for certain expenses it
16 as incurred as a result of its environm ental liabilities at the Sites, and by generally
17
lacing their own economic interests ahead of those of the Port, their insured.
18
EFENDANTS LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES OF SUIT
19
2.
n accordance with the policy terms and conditions, the Port notified the
20
efendants and/or their predecessors or reinsureds of the Port s claims with respect to the
21
TA site (which was later divided into two sites: the MTA Site and the K P ly Site) in
22
993. Defendant Travelers denied coverage for the Port s environmental liabilities at the
23
TA site. Defendant Travelers has not made a coverage determination for the Port s
24 nvironmental liabilities at the K Ply site. Defendants OneBeacon, Liberty Mutual, and
25
MI accepted the Port s tender of defense for the MTA and K Ply sites under
THE NADLER LAW GROUP Pt,Lc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 9
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 26 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
27/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16 .
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reservations of rights, including the rights to deny coverage and seek reimbursement of
payments (including those defendants determine to be indemnity payments) made to or
on behalf of the Port. Defendants OneBeacon, Liberty Mutual, and LMI have failed to
make a determination regarding their duty to indemnify the Port under their respective
policies. Despite receiving notice of the Port s claims for the MTA site more than twenty
years ago, defendants OneBeacon, Liberty Mutual, and LMI have failed to make a
coverage determination regarding their duty to indemnify the Port under their respective
policies.
33.
In accordance with the policy terms and conditions, the Port notified the
defendants and/or their predecessors or reinsureds of the Port s claims with respect to the
Harbor Site by 2011. Defendants Travelers, OneBeacon, Liberty Mutual, and LMI
accepted the Port s tender of defense for the Harbor Site under reservations of rights,
including the rights to deny coverage and seek reimbursement of payments (including
those defendants determine to be indemnity payments) made to or on behalf of the Port.
Despite receiving notice of the Port s claims for the Harbor site more than three years
ago, defendants Travelers, OneBeacon, Liberty Mutual, and LMI have failed to make a
determination regarding their duty to indemnify the Port under their respective policies.
34.
After agreeing to defend the Port under reservations of rights, the
defendants have delayed and continue to delay making coverage determinations,
allowing the passage of time to potentially prejudice the Port s ability to prove elements
of coverage at trial.
35.
Defendants have breached their enhanced duty of good faith to their
insured by failing to promptly conduct an adequate and reasonable investigation and by
giving greater consideration to their own interests than those of their insured.
36.
Over the course of handling the Port s claims, the defendants violated
THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 10
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 27 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
28/33
1
ther standards provided for in WAC 284-30, et seq.
which sets forth Washington s.
2
nfair claims settlement practices regulations.
3
7. The Port has been harmed by the defendants bad faith actions and
4 nactions in handling the Port s claims. Among other things, the Port has incurred
5
ttorney fees to address the wrongful actions and to bring this lawsuit to obtain the
6
enefits of its insurance policies because of the defendants failure to respond to,
7
nvestigate, and/or make coverage determinations in response to the Port s claims.
8 8.
he Port was forced to bring this lawsuit to obtain the benefits of its
9
nsurance policies issued by the defendants or their predecessors and/or reinsureds
10
ecause the defendants breached their obligations to investigate, defend, and/or
11
ndemnify the Port pursuant to the terms of the Policies.
12
IRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
Damages)
14
9. he Port incorporates the allegations of the above paragraphs as if fully set
15 I forth herein.
16
0. The Port was required to expend, and continues to be required to expend
17
ubstantial sums arising from its environmental liabilities at the Sites. The Port s
18
esponse costs include, but are not limited to, the cost to investigate and remediate the
19 ontaminated groundwater, surface water and/or sediments, and to investigate and
20 espond to claims for alleged natural resource damages.
21
1.
he defendants and/or their predecessors or reinsureds assumed duties
22
pursuant to the Policies to defend the Port and to indemnify it for certain costs and
23
xpenses arising from the Port s environmental liabilities at the Sites. These defendants
24
ave breached these duties.
25
THE NADLER LAW GROUP P[,Lc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-621-1433
ORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 11
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 28 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
29/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief)
42.
The Port incorporates the allegations of the above paragraphs as if fully set
II forth herein.
43.
The Port asserts that the defendants have obligations to defend and
indemnify the Port and to pay in full the costs which are being incurred and which will
continue to be incurred by the Port in connection with its environmental liabilities at the
Sites. By either explicitly denying coverage or by failing to make coverage
determinations, the defendants deny that they are bound by the obligations asserted by
the Port.
44.
Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy presently exists between
the Port and the defendants as to the defendants obligations to defend and indemnify the
Port for all costs arising out of its environmental liabilities at the Sites.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Bad Faith)
45.
The Port incorporates the allegations of the above paragraphs as if fully set
I forth herein.
46.
Under Washington law, an insurer must fulfill an enhanced obligation to
the insured as part of its duty of good faith. Insurers have broad obligations of fair
dealing and a responsibility to give due consideration to the insured s interests in all
matters. Defendants were obliged (a) to promptly conduct a thorough investigation and
to inform the Port of all developments relevant to claims of coverage, (b) to make a final
coverage determination, and (c) to refrain from actions demonstrating a greater concern
for their interests than the interests of the Port, their insured. Defendants breached their
enhanced duties of good faith by the actions and inactions alleged above.
THE NADLER LAW GROUP
PLr .c
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle W ashington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 12
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 29 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
30/33
1
7. Defendants bad faith conduct has proximately caused damage to the Port
2
n an amount to be proven at trial. The Port is further entitled to costs and attorneys fees
3 xpended in seeking to compel defendants to provide the full benefit of the insurance
4 policies.
5 OURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 Consumer Protection Act Violations)
7 8.
he Port incorporates the allegations of the above paragraphs as if fully set
8 II forth herein.
9
9. n information and belief, the defendants, their predecessors, and/ or their
10
gents have engaged in multiple unfair and deceptive acts including without limitation
11
ne or more of the following: (1) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards
12
or the prompt investigation of claims; (2) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims
13
ithin a reasonable time; (3) Failing to complete the investigation of the Port s claims
14
ithin thirty days after notification of the claims; (4) Failing to make a coverage
15
etermination in writing within fifteen working days after receipt by the insurer of fully
16
ompleted and executed proofs of loss; (5) Failing to commence an investigation within
17
ifteen days into their records, to determine the issuance, and relevant terms and
18
onditions of the lost policies; (6) Failing to provide to the Port facts known or
19
iscovered during an investigation, including the identity of any witnesses with
20
nowledge of facts related to the issuance or existence of lost policies; (7) Failing to
21
rovide the Port with copies of documents establishing facts related to the lost policies;
22
8) Failing to commence investigation of an environmental claim within fifteen working
23 ays after receipt of a notice of an environmental claim; (9) Failing to cooperate with
24
he Port in the investigation of the environmental claims at issue in this litigation; (10)
25 ailing to make payments, under their duty to defend, for costs reasonably incurred in an
THE NADLER LAW GROUP
PLLc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 13
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 30 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
31/33
1
nvestigation to determine the source of contamination, the type of contamination, and
2
he extent of the contamination; and (11) such conduct as shall appear through discovery
3 I and/or be proven at trial.
4
0.
he actions and/or inactions of defendants as alleged above constitute bad
5 I faith and unfair and deceptive business practices which were committed in the conduct
6 I of trade or commerce.
7 1.
he defendants are engaged in a business which affects the public interest
8
nd their actions occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce.
9
2. Defendants actions are prohibited by RCW 48.30.010, WAC 284-30-330,
10 t. seq.
and WAC 284-30-930,
et seq.
and are per se violations of the Washington
11
onsumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.
12
3.
efendants actions have a public interest impact because they violate
13
tatutes and regulations containing legislative declaration of public interest impact and
14
ecause defendants actions were conducted in the course of their business as part of a
15
attern and practice that have and will be repeated in adjusting other insurance claims,
16
hereby affecting numerous insureds.
17
4.
efendants wrongful conduct has caused injury to the Port in its business
18 nd property and has hindered its ability to defend itself adequately against the statutory
19 environmental liabilities.
20 5.
efendants are liable for actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
21
he costs of this litigation, including attorneys fees; and exemplary damages to the extent
22 rovided by RCW 19.86.090.
23
IFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24
Attorney Fees)
25
6.
he Port incorporates the allegations of the above paragraphs as if fully set
THE N DLER L W GROUP
P c
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue Suite 1400
Seattle W ashington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 14
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 31 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
32/33
1 II forth herein.
2
7. As a consequence of the Port having to bring suit to obtain the benefits of
3
ts insurance coverage under the Policies, the defendants are liable to the Port for the
4
ttorney fees and costs the Port incurred in bringing this suit and any petition for further
5 elief to enforce the orders and judgments entered during this action.
6
EQUEST FOR RELIEF
7 herefore, the Port of Port Angeles requests relief as follows:
8
8.
or judgment in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
9
everally, awarding damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Port for all costs,
10
ees, and expenses incurred in responding to and defending the environmental liabilities
11 t the Sites through the date of trial in this action.
12
9.
or a declaratory judgment confirming the defendants joint and several
13
bligation to defend and indemnify the Port against all future claims, costs, damages, and
14 adverse judgments and awards arising from the environmental liabilities at the Sites.
15 0.
or a judgment in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
16
everally for the Port s damages caused by bad faith conduct in an amount to be proven
17 t trial;
18
1.
or a judgment in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
19
everally for exemplary damages to the extent provided by RCW 19.86.090;
20
2. For a judgment in favor of the Port and against the defendants, jointly and
21
everally, for attorneys fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action as allowed under
22 lympic Steamship
the Consumer Protection Act, and other applicable law;
23 3.
or prejudgment and post judgment interest on all sums awarded the Port;
4 and
25
4.
or such other and further relief as may be allowed by any provision of law
THE NADLER LAW GROUP Pt Lc
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-621-1433
PORT S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 15
waters@nadlerlawgroup com
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 32 of 33
-
8/9/2019 THE PORT OF PORT ANGELES v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON et al complaint
33/33
2
3i
4
5 ,
6I
7 I
81
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
or that this Court deems just and prop er.
DAT ED this
day of February 2015.
THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLC
MarkS. Nadler, WSBA No.
8 26
eWaters, WSBA No. 37034
John . Dolese, WSBA No. 18015, of Counsel
Attorney s for Plaintiff Port of Port Angeles
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLC
Pacific Building
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98104
2 0 6 - 6 2 1 - 1 4 3 3
Case 3:15-cv-05180-KLS Document 1-2 Filed 03/26/15 Page 33 of 33