Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. et al v. Continental Casualty Company et al
Filing
87
OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 54 . Signed on 11/29/11 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (cib)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
."'
Portland Division
SCHNITZER
an Oregon
SCHNITZER
an Oregon
STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
corporation; and
INVESTMENT CORP.,
corporation,
3:10-CV-1l74-PK
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation; and
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,
Defendants.
REDDEN, Judge:
On August 3, 2011, Magistrate Judge Papak i sued a Findings
and Recommendation (doc. 54) in which he
ded that the
court (1) grant plaintiffs' Motion
w;lgment o.n the
Pleadings (doc. 15).
for Partial
Plaintiffs and defendants have each filed
timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
1
- OPINION AND ORDER
The district court must make a de novo dete mination of any
endation as·to
portion of a magistrate judge's Finding and
which any party has objected.
United
See 28 U.S.C. §
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) .
DISCUSSION
By December 2000, plaintiffs had been notiffl'ed by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Oregon D partment of
Environmental Quality that they were potentially responsible
parties liable for costs incurred in remediating contamination at
the Portland Harbor Superfund Site.
From January 1977 to October 1983, defendants issued annual
comprehensive general liability insurance policies to plaintiffs
insuring them against certain liabilities arisin~ from property
damage occurring during the respective policy perl iods that were
neither expected nor intended from plaintiffs' sandpoint.
The
I
policies included provisions requiring defendants to defend
plaintiffs in actions brought against them related to those
potential liabilities until the limits of the applicable policies
had been exhausted by payments or judgments.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have breached
he terms of the
policies by not reimbursing them in a timely man er for all the
reasonable attorneys fees and defense costs they have incurred
and are entitled to under the policies issued by defendants.
2
- OPINION AND ORDER
Magistrate Judge Papak recommended the cour
declare as
follows:
[I]n light of defendants' conceded cur ent
obligation to undertake Schnitzer's de ense
in connection with the Portland Harbor
Superfund matter, defendants (i) are j intly
and severally liable to pay the full aciount
of Schnitzer's reasonable and necessary
defense costs, and (ii) must make a
reasonably prompt determination and payment
of the reasonable and necessary fees, costs
and expenses incurred by Schnitzer.
Findings and Recommendation, at 13.
Magistrate Judge Papak also
recommended that the court's declaration be
subj~ct
to six
"caveats," which amount to guidelines or "qualifiers" formulated
by the court for the purpose of assisting the parties in their
future dealings regarding defendants' obligation to pay defense
plaintiffs' defense costs.
Each of the parties objects to one or more, but not all
of the caveats, in part based on their
magistrate judge's findings.
character~zations
of the
The Court has reviJwed the record
de novo and concludes the Magistrate Judge Papak's caveats, as
set forth in his Findings and Recommendation, are both clear and
reasonable, and provide appropriate guidance to the parties
regarding plaintiffs' rights and defendants' obl'gations relating
to defense costs under the terms of the insuranc
issue.
3
They do not require further clarificatio
- OPINION AND ORDER
policies at
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Ju ge Papak's
Findings and Recommendation (doc. 54) in their e tirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
day of November, 2011.
ames A. Redden
Senior United Stat s District Judge
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?