Precision Castparts Corp. et al v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Filing
71
Opinion and Order: ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, Century Indemnity Company, Precision Castparts Corp., and PCC Structurals, Inc.s Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4) [64 lead; 73 trailing] is GRANTED. Signed on 11/29/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.Associated Cases: 3:20-cv-01043-MO, 3:20-cv-01116-MO (kms)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. and
PCC STRUCTURALS, INC.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-1043-MO
(Lead Case)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:20-cv-1116-MO
(Trailing Case)
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY and ACE FIRE
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On September 16, 2022, trailing case Defendant ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance
Company (“ACE Fire”), lead case Plaintiffs Precision Castparts Corp. and PCC Structurals, Inc.
(collectively “PCC”), and Intervenor Century Indemnity Company (“Century”) filed their Motion
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4) [ECF 64].1 On September 30, 2022, trailing case
Plaintiff the American Insurance Company (“AIC”) responded in opposition [ECF 66], to which
ACE Fire, PCC, and Century replied on October 14, 2022 [ECF 68]. Upon reviewing the motion
and subsequent briefing, I GRANT the Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4).
LEGAL STANDARD
ORS 465.480(4), known as the Oregon Environmental Cleanup Assistance Act
(“OECAA”), states the following:
(a) An insurer that has paid all or part of an environmental claim may seek
contribution from any other insurer that is liable or potentially liable to the
insured and that has not entered into a good-faith settlement agreement with the
insured regarding the environmental claim.
(b) There is a rebuttable presumption that all binding settlement agreements
entered into between an insured and an insurer are good-faith settlements. A
settlement agreement between an insured and insurer that has been approved
by a court of competent jurisdiction after 30 days’ notice to other insurers is a
good-faith settlement agreement with respect to all such insurers to whom such
notice was provided.
(c) For purposes of ascertaining whether a right of contribution exists between
insurers, an insurer that seeks to avoid or minimize payment of contribution
may not assert a defense that the insurer is not liable or potentially liable
because another insurer has fully satisfied the environmental claim of the
insured and damages or coverage obligations are no longer owed to the insured.
(d) Contribution rights by and among insurers under this section preempt all
common law contribution rights, if any, by and between insurers for
environmental claims.
ORS 465.480(4).
OECAA’s legislative history indicates that the statute’s purpose is “to facilitate speedy cleanup of
hazardous waste sites by encouraging good-faith settlements and precluding lengthy contribution
1
All citations are to the lead case.
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
claims from non-settling insurers.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Mass. Bonding &
Ins. Co., 401 P.3d 1212, 1217 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2022, PCC, ACE Fire, and Century reached a settlement agreement through
good faith negotiations and mediation. Decl. of Steven Soha [ECF 65] at ¶ 8, 10. PCC released
ACE Fire and Century from any obligations with respect to two state class action cases in exchange
for a $3,000,000 payment under Century’s insurance policies. Id. In the settlement agreement, the
parties stipulated that ACE Fire’s four policies of $500,000 each had been exhausted, and
Century’s indemnity policy paid for PCC’s ultimate net loss. See Decl. of Steven Soha, Ex. 4 [ECF
65] at ¶¶ 3.02(1)–(5).
On August 3, 2022, counsel for ACE Fire and Century gave written notice of the settlement
to AIC and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Decl. of Steven Soha [ECF 65] at ¶ 9.
AIC opposes the Motion to Approve Settlement because it seeks contribution from ACE Fire.
Resp. in Opp’n [ECF 66] at 2.
DISCUSSION
ACE Fire, Century, and PCC have satisfied the statutory requirements for settlement
approval under ORS 465.480(4). The parties to the settlement provided notice to other insurers
and sought court approval after thirty days. Further, under ORS 465.480(4)(b), the parties to the
settlement agreement are entitled to the rebuttable presumption that the agreement is a good-faith
settlement. I am unconvinced by AIC’s argument against the applicability of the good-faith
presumption. AIC argues that the agreement is unfair because AIC has pending contribution claims
against ACE Fire. However, the purpose of the statute is to facilitate settlement agreements, and
the record does not rebut the presumption of good faith.
3 – OPINION AND ORDER
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Approve Settlement Under ORS 465.480(4) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ____
29 day of November, 2022.
___________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Senior United States 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?