King County v Travelers Indemnity Company et al
Filing
770
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 728 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Trigger of Coverage signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (TH)
1
Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
11
12
KING COUNTY, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01957 BJR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE:
TRIGGER OF COVERAGE
Plaintiff,
v.
13
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY; et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
18
Regarding Trigger of Coverage, filed by Plaintiff King County. Plaintiff is suing
19
Defendants, various Insurers, for coverage related to defense and cleanup costs
20
associated with environmental property damage at two Superfund sites in Seattle (the
21
“Underlying Environmental Sites”). In this motion, King County is seeking a
22
declaration on what it characterizes as a “threshold legal question:” that coverage under
23
the policies at issue in this case is “triggered” if King County establishes, as it claims it
24
will at trial, that property damage occurred at the Underlying Environmental Sites
25
during the period covered by such policies.
ORDER RE: TRIGGER OF COVERAGE
Case No. 2:14-cv-01957
– Page 1
1
Ultimately, the Defendants do not oppose the substance of King County’s
2
motion. In their Response, however, they seek clarification of what is meant by the
3
word “triggered,” and specifically, urge that the Court not rule on the ultimate issues of
4
Defendants’ liability under the policies. See Defs.’ Response at 5 (“The Insurers do not
5
necessarily disagree with the proposition that, under Washington law, property damage
6
during the policy year triggers coverage under the typical occurrence-based policy, so
7
long as it is clearly understood that “trigger” in this context does not equate to a
8
conclusion that coverage exists under the policy.”).
9
The Court does not interpret Plaintiff’s motion as requesting such a ruling.
10
What King County is seeking is a declaration that under applicable Washington law, in
11
the context of continuous and progressive environmental property damage, proof of
12
such property damage having occurred during the policy period will “trigger” potential
13
coverage. Such trigger is a necessary—but not sufficient—element of establishing
14
entitlement to coverage under the policies at issue in this case. To quote directly from
15
King County’s Revised Proposed Order, therefore, the Court rules:
16
1. For purposes of this Order, the term “trigger of coverage” means “what event
17
must occur for potential coverage to commence under the terms of the insurance
18
policy” and “what must take place within the policy’s effective dates for the potential
19
of coverage to be ‘triggered.’” In Re Feature Realty Litig., 468 F. Supp.2d 1287, 1295,
20
n.2 (E.D. Wash. 2006);
21
2. Each of the policies at issue is triggered for each Underlying Environmental
22
Site (as defined in Plaintiff’s Motion) if King County proves that property damage at or
23
in connection with the site took place during the respective periods of the policies;
24
25
3. Washington applies the “continuous trigger” rule to environmental property
damage insurance coverage cases; and
ORDER RE: TRIGGER OF COVERAGE
Case No. 2:14-cv-01957
– Page 2
4. Therefore, Washington’s “continuous trigger” rule is applicable to this case
1
2
such that, if King County demonstrates that the environmental property damage at each
3
of the Underlying Environmental Sites was continuous and progressive during the
4
relevant period, all of the policies at issue in effect during the period of this property
5
damage are triggered for each of the sites. 1
The Court does not perceive Defendants as objecting to the proposed order as
6
7
worded. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Trigger of Coverage is
8
therefore GRANTED as set forth above.
9
Dated this 28th day of March, 2019.
10
11
A
12
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
The Court notes that one Defendant, Westport Insurance Corporation, filed a separate supplemental
objection to this motion, to highlight that the insuring agreements for two of its policies referenced in
King County’s Fourth Amended Complaint have not been located. Westport Insurance asserts that King
County has therefore failed to meet its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a ruling on what triggers
coverage under those policies. King County responds that it intends to prove at trial that the language in
the two policies is materially similar to that in the other policies to which this ruling applies. If and when
King County supplies such proof, this ruling will apply to those Westport policies as well.
ORDER RE: TRIGGER OF COVERAGE
Case No. 2:14-cv-01957
– Page 3
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?