|
Martin C. Pentz
Partner
Boston
Martin Pentz is highly experienced in representing clients in insurance coverage litigation, with special emphasis on disputes over environmental liabilities. He has been recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts SuperLawyers for his effectiveness in these matters, as well as for his skills in commercial litigation in all courts.
Martin's primary client emphasis is on insured businesses. He represents his clients in lawsuits and ADR proceedings seeking recovery under various lines of property and casualty insurance, including general and umbrella liability insurance, directors and officers liability insurance, business property and business interruption insurance, errors and omissions insurance and crime insurance. Martin has tried and won major insurance coverage suits and successfully handled appeals in key precedent-setting cases. He has also negotiated seven- and eight-figure insurance recoveries on behalf of a number of industrial clients.
Martin's environmental litigation work focuses on lawsuits and appeals under the federal Superfund law (CERCLA) and Massachusetts' state equivalent (Ch. 21E). He has served as both common counsel and principal private negotiator in disputes involving Superfund site remediation.
Before joining Foley Hoag LLP, Martin was a litigation partner and Chair of the Insurance Coverage Practice Group at another major Boston law firm. Following law school graduation he clerked for the Justices of the Massachusetts Superior Court (1982-83), and served as Staff Attorney for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1983-84).
Bars and Court Admissions
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Representative Experience
The following is a brief summary of Martin's experience and accomplishments:
Scott v. NG US 1, Inc., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 474 (2006): Won summary judgment dismissing G.L. Ch. 21E action by property owner claiming successor liability of defendant utility for contamination allegedly caused by former manufactured gas plant operations of company whose assets were purchased by defendant. Affirmed on appeal by Massachusetts Appeals Court. Presently before Supreme Judicial Court on application by co-defendant for further appellate review.
OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 474 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2007): Secured for client Georgia-Pacific Corporation a district court judgment holding that, contrary to an insurer's contention, the cancellation of an umbrella liability policy after three months did not reduce the aggregate limit of liability of the policy from $10 million to $2.5 million, but rather left the full $10 million limit intact. Decision affirmed on appeal by First Circuit.
Sullivan's Ledge Superfund Site (Second Operable Unit): Principal private party negotiator for first mediated Region I Superfund Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree.
Allmerica Financial Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. SJC-09834 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, August 6, 2007): Submitted amicus curiae brief on behalf of public utility company, urging Court to narrow apparent scope of "known loss" doctrine in Massachusetts; Court rejected application of "known loss" in case presented, and clarified the "proper narrow construction of the known loss doctrine" to apply only to insurance purchased when liability was known or substantially certain.
Eastern Enterprises v. Hanover Ins. Co., No. MICV93-01458-F (Mass. Super. Middlesex): Won summary judgment against primary insurer on duty to defend DEP Ch. 21E proceeding regarding former coal tar processing facility. Tried a "lost policies" case against a second insurer, successfully establishing terms of policies. Won summary judgment on second insurer's duty to defend; secured 10-year stay of primary insurer's counterclaims seeking declaration of no indemnity obligation; suit presently pending against primary and excess insurers on duty to indemnify.
Narath, et al. v. Executive Risk Ins. Co., 2004 WL 924231(D. Mass. Mar. 14, 2002): Defeated an insurer motion for summary judgment based on "insured vs. insured" exclusion in directors and officers policy. Court held that the case nominally brought in name of bankrupt insured against directors did not invoke exclusion where bankruptcy trustee, acting for the benefit of creditors, was real party in interest.
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 113 Fed. Appx. 99, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21452 (6th Cir. 2004): Secured reversal by Sixth Circuit of district court opinion granting insurer summary judgment. The Court of Appeals held that insurer had a duty to defend the policyholder under "personal injury" provisions of a general liability policy for underlying action alleging the policyholder's participation in a conspiracy to defame a self-styled "whistle-blower." Case settled on remand.
| 