Represented one of the largest insurers as subrogee in two separate CERCLA proceedings against the United States. The insurer issued a specialty lines environmental pollution policy to a former military ordnance manufacturer. The insurer sought contribution for response/clean-up costs that it paid on its insured’s behalf in connection with the clean-up of two different manufacturing sites. The insurer is one of the first to successfully bring a CERCLA subrogation action under section 9612 of CERCLA in the Ninth Circuit, which had previously decided a question of first impression with a holding that limited insurers’ rights to seek subrogation recoveries under CERCLA. Despite this holding adverse to insurers, favorable settlements for the insurer were achieved in both proceedings that significantly mitigated policy losses.

Defended an insurer in a bad faith lawsuit brought by a lender in Puerto Rico. The suit stemmed from a settlement agreement reached between the insurer and its insured in 2013. The settlement agreement included a payment to the insured in exchange for complete release of the insurer's liability and a buyback of the insured's Pollution Legal Liability and Commercial Umbrella policies. The lender filed suit against the insurer alleging that the settlement payment should have been made to the lender under the PLL policy rather than the insured. Matt filed a motion to dismiss the lender’s claims on the ground that the Certificate of Insurance did not make the lender an “additional insured” under the policy. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the lender had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as a matter of Puerto Rico law. The trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.

Represented insurer client in connection with a massive environmental clean-up project that resulted in a settlement with the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection that resolved the client’s liabilities on a $140 million surety bond applicable to contamination at certain portions of the Meadowlands, while also providing the client an opportunity to recoup monies it had paid under the bond. The negotiated settlements have resulted in substantial recoveries to mitigate the client’s losses under the surety bond.