Two insurance companies affiliated with Travelers have asked an Oregon federal court to determine that they owe no coverage to an Intel contractor facing a $9.4 million personal injury lawsuit involving an alleged toxic chemical exposure at the technology giant’s facility.

In a complaint filed Thursday, Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. and Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America argued that they have no obligation to defend or indemnify Northwest Engineering Service Inc. (NWESI) under either its primary or excess insurance policies in connection with the case brought by Intel employee James Pope.

The dispute centers on several unresolved questions, including whether Pope’s alleged inhalation of a hazardous chemical constitutes a covered bodily injury and whether exclusions for professional services could bar insurance protection. Travelers also questioned whether the contractor complied with policy requirements to notify and cooperate with its insurers.

Intel Injury Suit Coverage Dispute Centers on Chemical Exposure

According to the complaint, Pope alleged that he was exposed to titanium tetrachloride in July 2023 while working at Intel’s manufacturing facility in Hillsboro, Oregon.

Pope’s underlying lawsuit claimed that NWESI had been hired by Intel to provide mechanical systems testing and balancing services. The contractor was allegedly responsible for testing various safety systems and ensuring their proper and safe operation, including regulator valves and exhaust systems.

The alleged exposure became the basis of Pope’s personal injury claim, which sought $9.4 million, according to the insurers’ filing.

For Travelers, however, the underlying allegations raise a separate question: whether the contractor’s insurance policies extend to the claims being made against it.

Insurers Question Policy Exclusions

Charter Oak and Travelers said it remains uncertain whether Pope’s alleged inhalation injury meets the policies’ definition of “bodily injury.”

Even if the claim qualifies as a bodily injury, the insurers argued that an exclusion for claims arising from the rendering or failure to render professional services could affect whether coverage applies.

The complaint also raises concerns about NWESI’s compliance with the policies’ cooperation provisions. Travelers said the contractor did not report Pope’s lawsuit until July, even though the underlying litigation had been filed in 2024.

That delay, the insurers contend, raises another issue the court must consider when determining whether they have any duty to provide coverage.

Travelers Denied Coverage Before Underlying Trial

Travelers informed NWESI in a coverage letter dated Oct. 1 that it would not provide coverage for Pope’s personal injury lawsuit.

The insurers are now seeking a judicial determination that neither the primary nor excess policies requires them to defend the contractor or pay damages on its behalf.

The coverage dispute developed as the underlying personal injury case approached trial. Records from Multnomah County Circuit Court show that a jury trial had been scheduled for Monday. However, the hearing was canceled after the parties reached a settlement.

The settlement resolved the underlying litigation, but the insurers’ complaint raises a separate dispute over their contractual obligations to NWESI.

Legal Representation and Responses

Counsel for Travelers did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Representatives for NWESI and Pope were also not immediately available.

Travelers is represented by Thomas Lether of Lether Law Group. Counsel information for NWESI and Pope was not available.

The case places the spotlight on the boundary between personal injury litigation and insurance coverage, where questions about policy definitions, exclusions and notice requirements can determine whether an insurer must step in when a contractor faces a costly claim.