Scott G. Johnson

• Focuses on providing insurance and reinsurance coverage advice and on representing insurers in coverage and bad faith litigation.
• Has written many coverage opinions and has handled numerous coverage disputes under first-party and third-party insurance policies involving claims arising from fire, explosion, earthquake, equipment breakdown, flood, and other losses.
• Has litigated disputes concerning various policy exclusions, limitations of liability, suit limitation provisions, statute of limitations, business interruption claims, the duty to defend, loss-in-progress, among others. Has also handled numerous appeals in several federal circuits and states.

Education

• William Mitchell College of Law, J.D., magna cum laude (1986)
• Winona State University, B.S., magna cum laude (1982)

Representative Matters

Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 85 F.4th 1034 (10th Cir. 2023) (affirming judgment on the pleadings in favor of property insurer finding that policy’s contamination exclusion barred coverage for casino resort’s claim for loss and damage caused by Covid-19).

Regents of the Univ. of Colo. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2021CV30206, 2023 WL 6003526 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Aug. 29, 2023) (granting summary judgment in favor of property insurer finding that there was no coverage for insured’s claim for loss and damage caused by Covid-19).

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-cv-01230-CDS-EJY, 2023 WL 5319772 (Aug. 10, 2023) (granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of property insurer finding that there was no coverage for insured’s claim for loss and damage caused by Covid-19).

Cammeby’s Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 13 Civ. 2814 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014): Represented Affiliated in matter where Cammeby’s alleged that Affiliated breached the insurance contract by failing to pay only $10 million of $30 million coverage limit for losses caused by Superstorm Sandy. After an eight-day trial, a judge ruled that Affiliated proved by clear and convincing evidence that the endorsement containing the $30 million coverage limit contained a mutual mistake as to the amount of the coverage, that the actual coverage limit was $10 million, and that the policy was reformed accordingly.

Gopher Co. v. Reuben, No. A11-959, 2012 WL 686101 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2012) (reversing summary judgment against client in mechanics lien foreclosure claim).

Asael Farr & Sons Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 193 P.3d 650 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (affirming summary judgment in favor of property insurer on insured's claim to recover more than $25,000 limitation of liability for product contamination losses).

Seminis, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (granting partial summary judgment in favor of property insurer finding that vegetable plants grown in open fields for research purposes were growing crops within the meaning of the growing crops exclusion).

Miletich v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. D048409, 2007 WL 4395702 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2007) (jury trial with verdict finding insured's loss excluded by deterioration exclusion and subsequent appeal affirming summary judgment on insured's bad faith claim on grounds that jury's subsequent determination that there was no coverage for insured's claim meant that insurer could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law).

Penton Media, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 245 Fed. Appx. 495, 2007 WL 2332323 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2007) (affirming summary judgment granted to property insurer in 9/11 business interruption claim based on FEMA takeover of Jacob Javits Center).

Clark County v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. CV-s-02-1258-KJD, 2005 WL 6720917 (D. Nev. Mar. 28, 2005) (granting summary judgment in favor of insurer in claim by owners of McCarran International Airport for business interruption losses arising out of FAA shutdown of airports after 9/11 attack).

Todd Shipyards v. Westport Ins. Corp., 111 Fed. Appx. 534 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment in favor of property insurer based on suit limitation provision in Nisqually earthquake claim).

Lockheed Martin v. RFI, 118 Fed. Appx. 122 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment in favor of research company on third-party claim based on alleged negligent approval of third party's product).

Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Estate of James Campbell, 81 Fed. Appx 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment in favor of property insurer in mold damage case on grounds that mold growth was a loss-in-progress when insurer came on the risk).

Fagelbaum v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. Appx 841 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment in favor of property insurer in jewelry theft claim on grounds that policy unambiguously limited coverage for unscheduled jewelry to $1,500).

Nama v. Bland, No. G027124, 2002 WL 27223 (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2002) (affirming summary judgment in favor of sellers of home who were sued for fraud for failing to disclose alleged defects in house sold to plaintiff).

Whiteside v. Florist's Mut. Ins. Co., 23 Fed. Appx. 815 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment to liability insurer on breach of contract claim, finding no duty to defend).

Century Park East Homeowners Ass'n v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Fed. Appx. 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment in favor of property insurer, holding that earth movement exclusion precluded coverage for sinking of insured's floor slab).

Pacific Ins. Co. v. Kent, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (granting summary judgment to property insurer and insurer's agent that were sued for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and emotional distress).

Amelco Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Case No. B125902 (Cal. Ct. App., 2nd Appellate Dist. 1999) (affirming summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds of the suit limitation clause).

Adele Sheets v. Chubb & Son, Inc., No. 94-5246 RMT (JRx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1998) (obtained judgment as a matter of law for property insurer at the conclusion of trial based on insured's material misrepresentations and concealments).

Federal Ins. Co. v. The Irvine Co., No. 95-56785, 1997 WL 367825 (9th Cir. July 2, 1997) (affirming summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer in insured's claim for cost to remove asbestos from seven commercial buildings based on statute of limitations).

EOTT v. Storebrand Int'l Ins. Co., A/S, 45 Cal. App. 4th 565, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 894 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (reversing grant of summary judgment, holding that 653 thefts of diesel fuel could constitute a single occurrence under property insurance policy if they were committed pursuant to a common plan or scheme).

Imperial Resource Recovery Associates, L.P. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 878 F. Supp. 434 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (granting property insurers motion for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiffs' action was barred by the policy's one-year suit limitation provision).

Carlton v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 30 Cal. App. 4th 1450, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229 (1994) (affirming summary judgment to auto insurer in a bad faith and breach of contract case, finding that insurer's conduct was reasonable as a matter of law).

Gordon Food Serv., Inc. v. Grand Rapids Material Handling Co., 183 Mich. App. 241, 454 N.W.2d 137 (1989) (reversing trial court's order denying subrogation defendant's motion to join property insurer as a party plaintiff).

Johnson Bros. Corp. v. Rapidan Redevelopment Ltd. Partnership, 423 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (affirming grant of partial summary judgment to party finding that a $100,000 deductible should have been applied to Rapidan's claim under force majeure insurance policies).

• Named a "BTI Client Service All-Star," The BTI Consulting Group (2024)
• Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2024-2025 editions)
• Named to "Top Lawyers List," Minnesota Monthly (2024)
• Named a “Top Rated Lawyer in Insurance Law,” American Lawyer Media (2013)

Professional

• Winona State University Foundation

Speeches

• Business Interruption Coverage: Maximizing Coverage or Limiting Liability Exposure
  Strafford, Webinar (March 14, 2012)
• Absolute Exclusions: Is There a Chink in the Armor?
  The Property Insurance Perspective, PLRB/LIRB 2004 Claims Conference, Chicago, Illinois (March 16, 2004)
• Resolving Ambiguities in Insurance Policy Language: The Contra Proferentem Doctrine and The Use of Extrinsic Evidence
  Making and Breaking The Property Insurance Contract, Property Insurance Law Committee,Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois (May 19, 2003)
• Practicalities of Handling the Mold Claim
  PLRB National Mold Symposium, Charlotte, North Carolina (February 4, 2002)
• Fundamentals of Insurance Litigation
  Continuing Education of the Bar, Irvine, California (April 27, 2001)