AIG Specialty Insurance Co. v. Tesoro Corporation, et al

  1. November 29, 2016

    5th Circ. Won't Rethink Tesoro's $30M Cleanup Coverage Loss

    The Fifth Circuit on Tuesday refused to reconsider its ruling last month affirming that Chartis Specialty Insurance owed no coverage to a Tesoro Corp. unit for $30 million in environmental cleanup costs at a California refinery.

  2. November 22, 2016

    McKool Smith Supports Tesoro Rehearing Bid At 5th Circ.

    McKool Smith PC on Monday asked to file a brief in the Fifth Circuit urging the appeals court to reconsider its decision last month affirming that Chartis Specialty Insurance owed no coverage toward $30 million in environmental cleanup costs at a California refinery, saying if the panel decision stands it will make it harder to fix insurance contract mistakes.

  3. November 15, 2016

    Tesoro Asks 5th Circ. To Redo $30M Cleanup Coverage Ruling

    A Tesoro Corp. unit has urged the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its decision last month affirming that Chartis Specialty Insurance owed no coverage toward $30 million in environmental cleanup costs at a California refinery, contending the panel overlooked the parties' underlying coverage intentions and misapplied Texas law.

  4. October 17, 2016

    5th Circ. Affirms Chartis Win In $30M Tesoro Cleanup Battle

    The Fifth Circuit on Monday affirmed a lower court's decision freeing Chartis Specialty Insurance Co. from covering nearly $30 million in environmental cleanup costs at a California refinery owned by a Tesoro Corp. unit, finding the oil giant waited too long to try to change the policy to add the refinery owner as an insured.

  5. April 05, 2016

    Tesoro Tells 5th Circ. To Ax Chartis Win In $30M Cleanup Row

    Tesoro Corp. urged the Fifth Circuit Tuesday to reverse a lower court's decision freeing Chartis Specialty Insurance Co. from covering nearly $30 million in environmental cleanup costs at a California refinery, arguing that there are still disputes as to when Tesoro should have known its policy didn't name the refinery owner as an insured.