Scott works within a diverse range of industries including aerospace, financial services, hospitality, oil and gas, manufacturing, steel products, technology, luxury goods, timber, restaurant, chemical, real estate and consulting.

Representative Experience — Insurance Coverage and Counseling

Scott counsels on insurance issues including coverage for major property damage and business interruption losses, advertising-related liabilities, errors and omissions claims, director and officer claims, product liability claims, employment liability, fiduciary liability (such as ERISA), False Claims Act and qui tam liabilities, theft and other criminal-related claims, environmental and mass tort matters, crypto claims, cyber claims, construction claims, personal injury claims (such as right to privacy and false imprisonment) and claims in bankruptcy.

• Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co., et al. Represented policyholder in a nine-month trial and ensuing appeals seeking reimbursement of defense and indemnity expense in connection with historical chemical releases. Obtained two appellate decisions holding that environmental cleanup costs are “damages” and recoverable under commercial general liability policies (211 Cal. App. 3d 216 (1988)) and that investigative expenses are recoverable as defense expenses (17 Cal. 4th 38 (1997)).
• Nucor v. Hartford, Travelers, Wausau, et al. Represented policyholder in action against insurers in state and federal courts in Arizona seeking reimbursement of defense and indemnity costs associated with underlying environmental tort and governmental actions. Obtained rulings that (1) sudden and accidental pollution exclusion means what insurers represented in 1970, (2) administrative proceedings trigger a duty to defend and (3) “bodily injury” coverage covers medical monitoring expense. After settling with two primary insurers, led a one-month trial concerning reasonableness of defense expense with the third insurer, resulting in a ruling largely adopting the policyholder’s position. Indemnity issues were tried to a jury, which found for the policyholder. On appeal, Scott obtained decisions on issues including the insurer’s duty to defend PRP claims and that a policyholder is not required to bear its share of defense costs associated with uninsured periods.
• Represented luxury goods company on insurance coverage for employment and ERISA-related claims.
• Represented consulting company seeking insurance coverage for defense and indemnity costs related to qui tam claims.
• Represented venture capital firm in securing defense and indemnity for directors and officers claims under New York law.
• Represented a high tech company seeking contingent risk coverage after its supply chain was damaged by storms in southeast Asia. After litigation was filed in New York, the claim was settled.
• Represented a company seeking reimbursement of considerable sums incurred defending and settling fire-related claims.
• Represented a steel products company in Louisiana litigation seeking insurance coverage from builders risk and property insurers for losses associated with a facility that collapsed during construction. Obtained substantial recoveries from insurers.

• Represented a steel products company on a Louisiana claim seeking insurance coverage from boiler and machinery insurers for losses sustained when a portion of the facility exploded. Claim settled before litigation.
• Represented a materials company on an Alabama claim seeking insurance for property damage sustained when a large barge struck a docking facility. Claim settled before litigation.
• Represented policyholder in Oregon litigation against its general liability insurers in which it sought to recover the cost of defense and settlement associated with environmental claims made by the City of Portland.
• Represented policyholders in the restaurant, hospitality, retail, and luxury goods industries in seeking insurance recovery for COVID-19 related loss in cases filed in California and New Jersey.
• Represented California policyholder and secured defense and indemnity for claims associated with alleged improper hiring and breach of confidentiality.

Representative Experience — Reported Decisions

• Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indem. Co., et al., 17 Cal. 4th 38 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (holding duty to defend includes RI/FS and other investigatory expenses so long as a purpose of the expense is to further the defense, and where a loss potentially triggers multiple policy periods, each insurer is severally and independently liable for the complete defense and is not entitled to seek defense from a “self-insured”).
• Aerojet-General Corp. v. Superior Court, 211 Cal. App. 3d 216 (first appellate decision in California holding that environmental cleanup costs are “damages” and recoverable under commercial general liability (CGL) policies).
• Tosoh SET v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3452 (holding advertising injury coverage includes direct as well as indirect forms of disparagement).
• Hyundai Motor America v. National Fire Ins. Co., 600 F.3d 1092 (holding advertising injury coverage includes allegations of patent infringement concerning website design).
• Nucor v. Employers of Wausau, 231 Ariz. 411 (addressing a number of landmark issues under Arizona law related to efforts to secure insurance recovery for environmental claims).
• The Inns By The Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., 71 Cal. App. 5th 688 (first California appellate decision addressing availability of all-risk property insurance coverage for COVID-19 losses).
• Ralph Lauren Corp v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-10167-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Aug. 7, 2020).
• Out West Restaurant Group. Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 3d 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
• 1401 Ocean LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., No. MON-L-003315-20 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth NJ, 2020) (appeal argued in New Jersey Appellate Division on January, 2023).
• Lulus Fashion Lounge v. Hartford Ins. Co., 2:20-cv-01836-MCE-DMC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022) (appeal pending).

Representative Experience — Environmental Mass and Class Tort Litigation

Scott tries complex civil cases including mass tort and class actions.

• Represented aerospace company and chemical company in mass and class toxic tort litigation in northern California. In the class action, (1) 70 plaintiffs claimed personal injuries and property damage associated with exposure to defendants’ chemicals and (2) plaintiffs sought to certify a medical monitoring and stigma damages class. The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to certify a class. Obtained defense verdict after three-month jury trial in 1986. In the mass action, 500 plaintiffs claimed personal injuries associated with exposure to defendants’ chemicals. Pre-trial led to dismissal of 490 of the 500 plaintiffs. A 10-week jury trial resulted in a defense verdict for one defendant, a defense verdict for the other with respect to four plaintiffs, and a plaintiff verdict against one of the remaining six. The case was settled thereafter.
• Represented steel products company in (1) a class action brought by Scottsdale and Phoenix residents alleging that chemical releases to air and groundwater diminished property value and increased the need for medical monitoring and (2) a personal injury action brought by more than 200 plaintiffs. After a multi-week Daubert hearing, the trial court rejected all of plaintiffs’ medical causation experts and entered judgment for defendants. The case settled thereafter.
• Handled a Daubert proceeding striking plaintiffs’ experts on the ground they would be testifying to “junk science.”
• Represented a global environmental consulting firm in a mass tort suit filed in New Jersey involving the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site. Seven hundred plaintiffs in 45 consolidated cases alleged that chemical releases and failure to properly remediate the site caused physical injuries and reduced property values. The case was resolved after the case management order issued.
• Represented a global chemical manufacturer in an action filed in California by more than 150 plaintiffs alleging that insecticides and pesticides caused cancer and other personal injuries, property diminution and increased need for medical monitoring. The claim settled at an early stage in the litigation.
• Represented aerospace company defendant in action alleging chemical releases damaged plaintiff’s interest in groundwater. Case settled after argument on motions in limine.
• Represented chemical company in cases from Texas through California involving exposure to an herbicide product that allegedly caused various injuries, including brain damage and death.
• Represent oil and gas company in pending mass actions brought by 20,000 plaintiffs in California.
• Represent international consumer products company that received a Proposition 65 notice in California and was sued in a class action alleging consumer fraud and seeking medical monitoring in Illinois. After working with consultants to develop conclusive evidence that the plaintiffs could not have been exposed to any chemicals emanating from client’s product, the Prop 65 letter was withdrawn.

Education
BA, The College of William & Mary, 1976

• Environmental Law, ABA Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation
• Tips for Filing Successful Wildfire Claims, Risk Management Magazine
• Traditional and Novel Theories of Liability and Damages in Toxic Tort Litigation, Corporate Counsel’s Guide to Environmental Law (Chapter 8)
• Use of Lone Pine Orders in Cost Effective Management of Mass Tort and Class Actions, Class Action Reporter
• Insurance Coverage for Digital Assets: Mitigating Losses in Cryptocurrency and Non-Fungible Token Markets, Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation
• Setting the Correct Prism for Construing Policy Language in COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases Can Be Outcome Determinative, National Law Review
• Insurance Coverage Transferability in Mergers and Acquisitions: Documenting the Acquiree’s Historical Coverage May Not Be Enough, Bloomberg Finance
• Principles of Advertising Injury Coverage, Mealey’s Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith
• Litigation Risks Related to Nanoproducts, Bloomberg Law Reports, Technology Law
• Ninth Circuit Narrowly Construes IP Exclusion Reaffirming Rules of Insurance Policy Construction, ICLC
• Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery, Advise & Consult
• Does Business Interruption Insurance Cover Your Company for Interruptions Due To COVID-19: Time Will Tell
• Appropriateness of Medical Monitoring Awards in Mass Tort Cases, BNA Toxics Law Reporter
• Ameron International: Expanding Insurance Recovery for Administrative Environmental Proceedings, Environmental Claims Journal
• Wildfire Claims and Coverage, Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation, Volume 2, No.3
• Nanotechnology – The New Frontier of Mass Tort Litigation, Mealey’s Litigation Report: Toxic Torts
• Principles of Third Party Liability Insurance, California Judges Association/The Rutter Group
• Settling for Less: Has Powerine Done Away with Liability Insurers’ Duty to Settle in California?, Coverage
• COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage: A Policyholder's Perspective, The Recorder
• A Deeper Dive into the Test Case Decision by the English High Court — An analysis of the Test Case, including potential impacts of the ruling, ongoing negotiations, and potential appeals, Coverage Law Center