While with Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno and their prior firms, the attorneys of Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno have achieved the following representative results:
City of Evansville v. USF & G
In City of Evansville v. USF&G, Michaels, Schulwolf & 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 & Salerno argued that all of the costs at issue were statutorily required operational improvements that could not be shifted to liability insurers. Michaels, Schulwolf & 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 & Salerno attorney Steven Schulwolf presented oral arguments to the Indiana Court of Appeals of behalf of all the defendant-appellees. Excerpts from those arguments can be viewed by clicking here.
Newnam Manufacturing, Inc. and Dalton Corp. v. Transcontinental Insurance Company
Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno served as co-appellate counsel for Transcontinental Insurance Company in another significant Clean Air Act case, Newnam Manufacturing , Inc. and Dalton Corp. v. Transcontinental Insurance Company, 871 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In Newnam the insured was seeking defense and indemnity for a suit against it by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, claiming that the insured failed to obtain the requisite permits before making a major modification to its manufacturing plant. The Indiana Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the insurer had no obligation to either defend or indemnify.
Reliance Insurance Company v. Raybestos Products Company
In Reliance Insurance Company v. Raybestos Products Company, 382 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in the client’s favor, enforcing the application of an arbitration clause. In the subsequent arbitration, Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno succeeded in persuading the panel to enforce the pollution exclusion in the client’s policies, even though the insured was an Indiana resident, the pollution site was in Indiana, and Indiana law does not enforce the exclusion.
Northern Illinois Gas Company v. The Home Insurance Company
In Northern Illinois Gas Company v. The Home Insurance Company, 334 Ill.App.3d 38, 777 N.E.2d 417, 267 Ill.Dec. 614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002), appeal denied, 202 Ill.2d 614 (Ill. 2002), the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld summary judgment in favor of the client, enforcing the voluntary payment clause in the client’s insurance contracts.
Trans World Airlines v. Associated Aviation Underwriters
In Trans World Airlines v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, 58 S.W.3d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001), insurers obtained summary judgment in their favor pursuant to policies containing pollution exclusions and then proceeded to trial on the remaining policies that were in effect prior to 1971. After a lengthy trial, the insurers obtained a verdict in their favor. This was the first and only trial concerning claims for pollution coverage by a major airline.
Maremont Corp. v. Continental Casualty Company
In Maremont Corp. v. Continental Casualty Company, 326 Ill. App. 3d 272, 760 N.E.2d 550, 260 Ill.Dec. 133 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001), appeal denied, 198 Ill.2d 617 (Ill. 2002), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed summary judgment for the client on allocation grounds. Attorneys from Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno acted as lead counsel in this matter.
Hard Rock Cafe International (USA) Inc. v. Morton
In an intellectual property dispute concerning website framing, Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno attorneys contributed substantially to the client obtaining a permanent injunction, as reported at Hard Rock Cafe International (USA) Inc. v. Morton, 1999 WL 717995 (S.D.N.Y 1999).
Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company
In Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 873 N.E.2d 105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno filed suit on behalf of an insurer client in Hendricks County, Indiana, seeking a declaration that there was no insurance coverage for amounts Cinergy might expend as a result of allegations that it violated the Clean Air Act by failing to obtain permits before modifying its power plants. The firm thwarted Cinergy’s attempt to change venue to Marion County. See Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al., 785 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The firm subsequently obtained summary judgment that its client had no obligation to pay defense costs to or to indemnify Cinergy for these claims. Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno then successfully defended these results in two separate appeals. See Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 810 N.E.2d 786 (Table) (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (unpublished).
Samuels Recycling Co. v. Continental Casualty Company
In Samuels Recycling Co. v. Continental Casualty Company, 713 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006), Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno obtained dismissal of claims that the insurer had wrongfully denied coverage for government-imposed environmental cleanup costs and claims of bad faith. In a related case, Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno successfully argued that the insured should not be permitted to re-litigate the claims dismissed in the prior proceeding based upon a change in law.
AAA Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty And Surety Co.
In AAA Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 355 Ill.App.3d 275, 821 N.E.2d 1278, 290 Ill.Dec. 704 (Ill. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 2005), appeal denied, 213 Ill.2d 553 (Ill. 2005), the Appellate Court ruled in our client’s favor in an important late notice and allocation decision, affirming the late notice ruling in the client’s favor in its entirety.
In February 2004, attorneys of Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno took the lead in an American Arbitration Association hearing concerning a breach of contract dispute over a multi-facility service contract, and secured a seven-figure award for the client. The award included the entirety of the disputed debt, full contractual interest, attorneys’ fees and a six-figure lost profits award.
Pope v. Economy Casualty & Fire Company
In Pope v. Economy Casualty & Fire Company, 335 Ill.App.3d 41, 779 N.E.2d 461, 268 Ill.Dec. 847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002), appeal denied, 202 Ill. 2d 698 (Ill. 2003), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, enforced the client’s lead paint exclusion in a case of first impression in Illinois. The court addressed whether the exclusion barred coverage for exposure to lead dust when it did not expressly refer to lead dust, and found that the underlying complaint unambiguously fell within the exclusion.
Rohm and Haas Company v. Continental Casualty Company
In Rohm and Haas Company v. Continental Casualty Company, et al., 566 Pa. 464, 781 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 2001), a verdict in favor of insurers was reinstated following the appeal from a nine week jury trial. Michaels, Schulwolf & Salerno attorneys participated in trying this case to a favorable verdict for insurers on several grounds, including fraud, known loss, and expected or intended damage.
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation v. Employers Insurance of Wausau
In Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 88 Ohio St.3d 292, 725 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio 2000), the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on behalf of the client on late notice grounds. The court found prejudice to insurers from the policyholder’s late notice in a number of important respects, including the policyholder’s unilateral entrance into an Administrative Order by Consent without notifying or obtaining the consent of its insurers.
Harvard Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
In Harvard Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 273 N.J.Super. 467, 642 A.2d 438 (N.J. Super Ct. Law Div. 1993), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, upheld application of the client’s pollution exclusion.