Insurance Coverage Litigation

Winning Track Record

Significant Rulings

  • Plastics Engineering ("Plenco") v. Liberty Mutual, 2009 WI 113, 315 Wis. 2d 556, 759 N.W.2d 61. The Wisconsin Supreme Court established an “all sums” or "joint and several" allocation method for determining insurance coverage in long-tail claims that encompass multiple policy periods, and further found the asbestos injuries constituted multiple occurrences.
  • Cargill v. Ace American Ins. Co.,784 N.W. 2d 341 (Minn. 2010). Minnesota Supreme Court made groundbreaking decisions as to allocation, insurers’ duties to each other, and the effect of loan receipt agreements in determining the duty to defend in relation to billions of dollars in environmental claims brought against Cargill.
  • Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 2003 WI 108, 264 Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled a decade of pro-insurer case law and established coverage for environmental claims.
  • U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. Clarendon American Ins. Co., 381 Fed. App. 735 (9th Cir. 2010). Reversed District Court, Ninth Circuit disallowed insurer's attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence to defeat coverage.
  • Live Nation LGTours (USA) LLC et al. v. Beasley Syndicate, 623 at Lloyd’s et al., No.: 13-CV-01483, United States District Court for the Central District of California. We successfully represented, inter alia, Lady Gaga's promoters in an action to obtain terrorism insurance coverage with respect to cancellation of an Indonesian concert due to threats by Islamic hardliners.
  • The Mosaic Company, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No.: 13-CV-02955, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. We represent the Mosaic Company in litigation against its insurer with respect to the contours of insurer’s duty to reimburse defense costs, the right to select defense counsel, and the applicability of policy retentions.
  • American Chemical Service Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company et al., No.: 13-CV-00177, United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. We represent American Chemical Service Inc. in a coverage action involving the scope and application of the duty to defend in an underlying environmental claim.
  • Mikula v. Miller Brewing Co., 281 Wis.2d 712, 701 N.W.2d 613, 2005 WI App 92 (establishing coverage for construction owner negligence under additional insured endorsement)
  • Miller Brewing Co. v. ACE U.S. Holdings, 391 F.Supp.2d 735 (E.D. Wis. 2005), establishing that a Wisconsin forum was appropriate for a coverage matter involving a Wisconsin insured, despite an earlier filed insurer action in New York.
  • Rockwell Automation v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.; No. 04-CV-1238 (Milw. Co., Wis.). Pre-Plenco case in which the circuit court correctly predicted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would rule that Wisconsin is a joint and several state for purposes of allocation. 
  • Diversatek, Inc. v. QBE, Ins. Co., Case No. 07-1036 (E.D. Wis. March 31, 2012), finding the insurer liable for coverage as well as attorneys fees and statutory interest at 12% due to insurer bad faith.
  • Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., Case No. 12-CV-5994 (Milwaukee Co.), in which we sought on behalf of Harley-Davidson asbestos defense and indemnity costs against ten insurers. Harley settled with nine of the insurers relatively early in the case, following a favorable ruling on Harley's motion to remand to state court. It settled with the one remaining insurer following multiple summary judgment rulings finding the insurer in breach of its duty to defend, and finding the insurer liable for defense costs with no right of review, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees incurred in the litigation.
  • Kohler Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, Case No. 99-CV-225 (Sheboygan Co., Wis.) Court adopted a single occurrence finding in context of manufacturing defect claims exhausting self-insured retentions and allowing attachment of policies.
  • Representation of multiple PRP’s in Fox River clean-up litigation, in connection with coverage matters, including acting as lead counsel in Menasha Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., Case No. 07-CV-1406 (Winnebago Cy. Wis.), a complex coverage case that involved numerous factual and legal issues.
Payment Portal

You are leaving the Quarles & Brady website and being directed to the bill presentment and paying service offered by a third party provider. If you do not wish to continue to the site, click Close or use the Back button on your web browser to return the Quarles & Brady website.