The firm served as lead counsel to Boardman Petroleum in two significant actions resulting in reported decisions. The first action was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta) for recovery of the cleanup costs associated with environmental contamination of a number of sites. Upon a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, the Georgia Supreme Court accepted our arguments and construed the “onsite” property damage exclusion in our favor, holding that the exclusion did not exclude coverage for property damage that had spread offsite or was in imminent danger of spreading offsite. The Supreme Court also accepted our argument and cited with approval cases from other jurisdictions that refused to allocate between covered and excluded costs when such costs were awarded for remediating both onsite and offsite pollution. The decision is reported at Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. 1998). In the second suit, the Eleventh Circuit held that the breach of contract claim instituted by Boardman Petroleum in Georgia took precedence over declaratory judgment actions instituted by carriers in South Carolina, despite South Carolina’s statute providing that insurance disputes involving property damage generally will be governed by the law of the state where the property is located. The Eleventh Circuit held that Georgia’s law controlled, which led to a favorable settlement for our client. The decision is reported at Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 150 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 1998). Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. 1998); Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 150 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 1998).