Washington Appeals Court Joins Majority View That A Government PRP Letter Or Clean-Up Order Can Be The Functional Equivalent Of A 'Suit' And Therefore Trigger A Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend

Courts in several states have reached divergent views as to whether a liability insurer that has agreed to defend any "suit" against its insured must defend the insured in the face of a "potentially responsible party" (PRP) letter or government clean-up order. A minority of states have taken a narrow view and have limited "suit" to a complaint filed against the insured in court or certain types of administrative proceedings. In contrast, most states that have considered the issue have taken a broader view and found that a PRP letter or government clean-up order is the functional equivalent of a suit and therefore triggers the insurer's duty to defend.

Addressing an issue of first impression, a Washington Court of Appeals ruled that "suit" does not require that a complaint be filed in court or that an administrative action be commenced against the insured. Rather, under a functional equivalent standard, "the duty to defend is triggered if a government agency communicates an explicit or implicit threat of immediate and severe consequences by reason of the contamination." Gull Industries, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No. 69569 (Wash. Ct. App., June 2, 2014).

Gull Industries leased one of its gas stations to an operator. Gull insured itself against liability arising from the operation of that station under its own general liability policy and also was an additional insured under a Service Station liability policy obtained by the operator. Each of the policies provided that the insurer shall defend "any suit" against Gull seeking damages covered by the policy. Neither policy defined "suit."

While investigating an underground storage tank in 1984, Gull discovered a continuous release of hydrocarbons into the soil adjacent to the tank. Gull voluntarily investigated and cleaned up the soil and groundwater. Twenty years later, in 2005, Gull notified the state Department of Ecology (DOE) of the release, and DOE sent Gull a letter acknowledging Gull's notice. A few years later, Gull requested defense and indemnity from its liability insurer and from its lessee/operator's liability insurer as an additional insured. When the two insurers refused, Gull filed suit.

Gull contended that because it was strictly liable under the state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) as the owner of contaminated property, imposing a duty to defend on Gull's insurers would be consistent with Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 123 Wn.2d 891, 896-97 (1994). In...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT