In City of Evansville v. USF&G, Michaels, Schulwolf and Salerno obtained summary judgment in favor of its insurer client that the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify Evansville for hundreds of millions of dollars that the USEPA deemed were necessary to improve the operation of Evansville’s combined sewer system. Evansville retained multiple experts and highlighted their testimony in arguing that the costs of projects designed to reduce future pollution should be considered remediation of its past discharges. Michaels, Schulwolf and Salernoargued that all of the costs at issue were statutorily required operational improvements that could not be shifted to liability insurers. Michaels, Schulwolf and Salerno deposed a key expert and succeeded in using his testimony to underscore the fact that Evansville’s experts had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court dismissed all of Evansville’s claims. Michaels, Schulwolf and Salerno handled the appeal.
Steven Schulwolf presented oral arguments to the Indiana Court of Appeals of behalf of all the defendant-appellees. Highlights of those arguments are available below by clicking on the links.
Video Excerpt 1 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf identifies a fundamental flaw in opposing counsel's argument and further responds to why there was not a "occurrence," which is necessary to implicate his client's insurance policies.
Video Excerpt 2 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf focuses on why opposing counsel's response to the panel's questions actually supports his client's arguments.
Video Excerpt 3 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf responds to the panel's questions as to why opposing counsel is wrong that summary judgment was improper by underscoring that the identical argument had been rejected by the Indiana Supreme Court in another case that both he and opposing counsel participated in.
Video Excerpt 4 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf persuades the court that the costs at issue here are merely the intended consequences of the environmental regulations at issue.
Video Excerpt 5 - Here, the appellate court acknowledges Mr. Schulwolf's and opposing counsel's experience in important Indiana insurance coverage matters and Mr. Schulwolf notes that opposing counsel's arguments have already been rejected.
Video Excerpt 6 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf argues why opposing counsel's expert affidavits fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Video Excerpt 7 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf highlights caselaw supporting his client's argument that insurers need not pay to improve their policyholder's operations to comply with legal requirements.
Video Excerpt 8 - Here, Mr. Schulwolf responds to why portions of the record that appeared to concern the panel did not support reversing the trial court's favorable ruling.
Video Excerpt 9 - Here, the Indiana Court of Appeals congratulates Mr. Schulwolf and opposing counsel for their well prepared arguments and written appellate work, and also has some fun with the fact that counsel for other carriers allowed Mr. Schulwolf to argue on the behalf of all other defendant-appellees.