Source: https://www.karrtuttle.com/practice-areas/insurance-coverage/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:49:32+00:00

Document:
Karr Tuttle Campbell has a strong, recognized insurance coverage practice. Our attorneys represent insured and insurer clients in policy and claim analysis; coverage litigation, including appeals; and bad faith disputes. Our expertise encompasses general commercial liability policies; inland marine, crime, cargo, director’s and officer’s, and errors and omissions policies; life, health, and disability coverage; self-insured, excess and surplus lines programs; and reinsurance. Because our attorneys actively represent both insurers and policyholders when no conflicts of interest exist, they are uniquely qualified to evaluate and litigate coverage matters objectively, knowledgably, comprehensively, and with the insight gained from understanding how “the other side” approaches insurance matters and disputes.
The head of our Insurance Coverage practice has earned the professional insurance designations of Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriters (CPCU), Associate in Risk Management (ARM), and Certified Litigation Management Professional (CLMP) from Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, and has served as President of Pacific Northwest Chapter of the CPCU Society. She has over twenty years of experience analyzing insurance claims and litigating coverage disputes at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts. Several other shareholders and senior associates also regularly engage in insurance claim analysis, and litigate coverage and bad-faith disputes.
King County v. City of Algona et al., King County Superior Court. We represented the county against another municipality and its affiliates after defendants failed to honor contractual obligations for the defense and indemnification of an underlying serious personal injury claim. The case settled very favorably to King County, which recovered 100% of its damages and nearly all of its attorneys’ fees and expenses.
King County v. Allendale Mutual et al. and related cases, King County Superior Court and U.S. District Court. We represented the plaintiff municipality in several related construction liability and insurance coverage actions against contractors and first- and third-party insurers. These actions arose out of construction activities at the Kingdome in King County, Washington. Ceiling tiles fell during exterior work on the structure, used as a stadium by three professional sports teams, causing a four month disruption in the use of this major sports facility as well as other damages. We prevailed on multiple motions for summary judgment, and settled the remaining claim against the property insurer very favorably to King County, the stadium owner.
Polygon Northwest v. American National Fire Ins. Co. et al., King County Superior Court and Division I, Court of Appeals, reported at 143 Wn. App. 753 (2008). We represented Assurance Company of America in a breach of contract and bad-faith action that evolved into a dispute between excess insurers over responsibility for the underlying settlement of construction defect action. We successfully litigated multiple construction and coverage issues involving insolvency, supplementary payments, exhaustion, prejudgment interest, “other insurance” obligations, and equitable contribution in the trial and appellate courts, recovering substantial sums for our client.
American National Insurance Company v. B. & L. Trucking et al., Pierce County Superior Court. We represented insurer at trial where issues concerned the timing and nature of the insured’s knowledge of property damage arising out of its operation of a landfill. We persuaded the jury that the insured knew and understood his business operations were adversely affecting the environment during the first year of the landfill’s operations. Based on this finding, only the first of our insurer client’s several policies was triggered for the loss.
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Travelers et al., United States District Court, Western District, Washington. We represented the plaintiff insurer of a general contractor against the insurer of a subcontractor, which wrongfully denied coverage to the general contractor as an additional insured. We persuaded the defendant insurer to change its position and reimburse our client for its defense and indemnity expenses.
Eagle Hardware v. Valiant Insurance Company, United States District Court, Western District, Washington. In this case, our attorneys successfully defended our client, an insurer, against all claims for coverage and bad faith in a hotly contested matter arising out of a dispute with another insurer, which mismanaged the underlying defense and sought to impose liability on our client.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.