
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6e Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: May 22, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
regarding whether it is entitled to reimbursement for the disputed claims. The settlement also
significantly narrows the remaining areas of dispute between the Port and its insurer, and
permits the parties to focus their future efforts on those remaining disputes, without the
distraction of the claims being settled now.
The Port has tendered numerous claims and demands for payment of defense costs to GAIC
under insurance policies issued from the 1960s into the 1980s. These defense costs have been
incurred because of claims and notices asserted against the Port by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies. The agencies have asserted claims against the Port
because of alleged contamination of land, groundwater and sediments at or adjacent to certain
sites such as East Waterway and West Waterway (cleanup claims), Terminal 91, Elliott
Bay/Duwamish River (natural resource damage claim), and Lower Duwamish Waterway
(cleanup claims). The Port’s liability arises out of the Port’s alleged acts, omissions and liability
as a generator, disposer, manufacturer, distributor, transporter, lessor, lessee, or (primarily)
owner of contaminated real property. GAIC issued insurance policies to the Port providing
general liability coverage. Under these policies, GAIC owes a duty to defend to the Port.
Great American has paid approximately $11,262,650 for claimed non-attorney defense costs
through 2016 that were not disputed by the insurer. Great American also paid the Port's
attorney fee defense costs through that time period in the amount of $6,753,797. Other
defense expenditures have been disputed by Great American, either because the insurer
contends the costs are not covered or because if covered the insurer contends the expenditure
constitute indemnity rather than defense costs. With this settlement, all remaining disputes
regarding the Port's defense cost claims through 2014 will be resolved.
Some of the disputed cost claims have already been settled. The Port and GAIC entered into a
Duty to Defend Settlement Agreement and Partial Release on February 12, 1997 (1997
Agreement) resolving certain defense obligations. In the 1997 Agreement, GAIC agreed to pay
certain past incurred defense costs (incurred prior to 1997 Agreement). In the 1997 Agreement,
GAIC also agreed to pay certain defense costs to be incurred after February 12, 1997, subject to
a reservation of the right to challenge all claimed defense costs for reasonableness, necessity,
characterization as defense or indemnity costs and relationship to defense of environmental
actions. Following the 1997 Agreement, the Port submitted claims for defense costs incurred
since that Agreement; GAIC disputed payment of some of those costs.
In July 2014, the Port entered into a 2014 Duty to Defend Settlement Agreement and Partial
Release resolving certain defense costs incurred after the 1997 Agreement but on or before
December 31, 2012. GAIC agreed to pay the Port $1.4 million in exchange for a release of
“Certain Past Incurred Defense Costs” (as defined in the 2014 Agreement) and claims for GAIC’s
alleged previous refusal to accept and pay for such costs. GAIC and the Port expressly reserved,
among other things, the right to litigate GAIC’s duty to defend the Port with respect to costs for
work performed after December 31, 2012.