Skip to Main Content
Our Commitment to Diversity

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

John M. Hagan

Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Co. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., et al. (Pa. Commw. Ct.).  Represent policyholder in coverage litigation with respect to alleged environmental liabilities relating to former industrial operations.  Successfully argued to Commonwealth Court to apply a “continuous trigger” for latent environmental damage under Pennsylvania law, and to reject an insurer’s attempt to impose a “manifestation trigger.”

NW Natural d/b/a Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., et al (Or. Cir. Ct. Multnomah County).  Successfully represented policyholder in coverage litigation with respect to alleged environmental liabilities relating to former manufactured gas plant operations.  Proved the existence of dozens of disputed insurance policies at two-week trial.  In addition, won motions for summary judgment relating to, among other things, the insurers’ “expected or intended” defense, various pollution exclusions, and a petroleum operations exclusion.

King County v. Travelers Indemnity Co., et al. (W.D. Wash.).  Successfully represented policyholder in coverage litigation with respect to alleged environmental liabilities relating to the Lower Duwamish Waterway site in Washington.

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., et al. (Ohio Common Pleas Hamilton County).  Successfully represented policyholder in coverage litigation with respect to alleged environmental liabilities relating to former manufactured gas plant operations.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County).  Represented policyholder in litigation regarding alleged asbestos liabilities.  Following discovery and summary judgment rulings, case settled favorably.

Continental Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al. (N.J. Super. Ct. Morris County).  Successfully represented policyholder in litigation regarding alleged asbestos liabilities.  After reaching favorable settlements with most insurers, trial court entered judgment against last remaining insurer.

AMETEK, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Co., et al. (Pa. Common Pleas Chester County).  Successfully represented policyholder in coverage litigation regarding the defense and settlement of asbestos claims.

Confidential arbitrations between multinational corporation policyholder and its insurers and their claims-handling entity. Successfully established the reasonableness of underlying settlements of asbestos-related claims, the insurers’ bad faith conduct, and the policyholder’s right to recover punitive damages.
Represented corporate conglomerate policyholder in the negotiation of multiple confidential coverage-in-place agreements relating to lines of alleged asbestos liabilities. These “CIP” agreements were entered into with nearly all of the policyholder’s solvent historical insurers, and the agreements secured ongoing payment of defense and indemnity costs without the need for litigation.
Successfully represented policyholder seeking coverage for asbestos-related claims brought by former employees.
Successfully represented a charity with respect to a claim for property damage caused by a water back-up into the charity’s headquarters. After the insurer initially denied coverage outright, it ultimately paid the charity’s claim in full.
Represented a church with respect to a claim for property damage resulting from a break-in. Although the insurer and its chosen expert attempted to limit the amount of the insured claim severely, after negotiation the insurer paid the church’s claim in full.
Return to top of page

Email Disclaimer

We welcome your email, but please understand that if you are not already a client of K&L Gates LLP, we cannot represent you until we confirm that doing so would not create a conflict of interest and is otherwise consistent with the policies of our firm. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential information until we verify that the firm is in a position to represent you and our engagement is confirmed in a letter. Prior to that time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept Cancel