Call Us Now: 716.208.3525

EEOICPA & RECA Attorneys

Stephens & Stephens has obtained over $60 million through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Act for our clients

Gloria ReynoldsGloria Reynolds
04:16 30 Mar 24
Stephens & Stephens was very helpful in getting my claim processed and helping me in getting my settlement, staff was knowledgeable and professional and very kind if I call and needed to ask a question they would call me back within a timely manner. Thank you so much for your help .Continue to be blessed Gloria
Dee GodfreyDee Godfrey
18:49 12 Mar 24
I was astounded with the service I received from Mr. Hugh Stephens in regard to my husband's compensation claim. He was not only efficient, but also compassionate, and communicated clearly and frequently. Because of his outstanding efforts and expertise, I, who am now a grieving widow, am unexpectedly stabile and secure. I had little to do. He did all the heavy lifting. I'm so very grateful for his help. I'll always remember not only his professionalism, but also his kindness.
Audrey OgletreeAudrey Ogletree
22:19 09 Mar 24
From: Laurence OgletreeI received good assistance from Stephens & Stephens in submitting the recent claim for increased impairment benefits from the Energy Workers program.
Randy MooreRandy Moore
14:48 07 Mar 24
I was a machinist at Honeywell F.M.&T.and developed bilateral tinnitus and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. They helped me file a claim with EEOICPA in 2017. Stephen’s & Stephen’s was very good to work with, they take care of all the paperwork and help with any paperwork I receive from the Department of Labor. They stay on top of things helping with scheduling impairment reviews etc.I feel that without their help this would have been a very overwhelming process.I plan on still using them if any other illnesses occur due to my employment with Honeywell.
Mike DauzatMike Dauzat
15:54 02 Mar 24
I highly recommend Stevens and Stevens. Hugh Stevens and his staff are very professional and very friendly. They're extremely good at making sure you get the full amount of money you deserve. If you need a DOL lawyer, I highly recommend this team. I can't be more happy that I picked Stevens and Stevens.
Mary YbarraMary Ybarra
01:33 27 Feb 24
Stephen’s and Stephen’s has kept fight for my dad. Now they are fight for my mom. They are on top of things and I would recommend them to anyone who needs help and guidance with the Uranium mines.
Dianne HarperDianne Harper
01:02 17 Feb 24
Robert and I are very pleased with Mr. Hugh Stephens and all that he has done for us. From the first moment we spoke, we sensed that though Mr. Stephens exhibits sharp business acumen, he cares deeply about his clients and he has a huge heart.
Diane pontonDiane ponton
17:38 07 Feb 24
I tried to get others to help me with this claim, and it wasn"t until I hired Mr. Stephens that things started happening. I would recommend any one to get in touch with him . I would go to him again, if i ever needed to.
Judy LeonardJudy Leonard
22:26 06 Feb 24
I very much appreciate the successful litigation concerning my husband's Hanford work related illness. Stephens & Stephens LLP were thorough, caring, considerate, and fair during this difficult time.
Kenneth GKenneth G
18:23 03 Feb 24
Mr. Stephens was able to simplify an otherwise complicated lengthy process (DEEOIC) to file an initial claim as well as a claim for impairment benefits.
18:08 03 Feb 24
Frankie KnucFrankie Knuc
19:24 08 Jan 24
I had other attorneys hired in Cortez, Colorado and Grand Jct., Colorado to assist me with receiving my uranium claim, but they were not successful. I was advised by an employee of CNS of Stephens & Stephens, LLP good work. I contacted them & they took my case It was settled very quickly. I have been very pleased with this group & would advise others of their prompt service. I would recommend them to others. Respectfully, Frankie Knuckles
Rebecca ConsolRebecca Consol
19:57 22 Dec 23
My family used Stephen’s and Stephen’s for a settlement case. We were extremely pleased with all they did. They were very professional, easy to get a hold of, and invaluable when it came to answering questions and handling complicated Department of Labor issues and forms. They also did everything in a very timely manner. I have already recommended them to other people.
Thomas CliffordThomas Clifford
15:29 21 Dec 23
I have been represented by Hugh Stevens for several years now, He and his staff has made everything so easy for me. I had lung cancer from working in the uranium processing industry, they have opened so many doors for me and made dealing with DOL so much easier. They always answer my questions in a very timely manner. I have referred several other people to him and he has been able to get them through this process also. There are benefits that I was not aware of that he has brought to my attention and been able to lead me through the process of obtaining them. I would most highly recommend him to lead anyone through this process.
Lonnie killingHawkLonnie killingHawk
02:35 14 Dec 23
When I first contacted Stephens & Stephens I was at the end of my rope with DOL. Hough and his staff got me on track and handled everything with DOL and just made this process so easy. Do not know where I'd be with out them. They are able to communicate at a layman's level and understand the client. Would strongly recommend this firm.
Ruthy LyonRuthy Lyon
21:00 28 Sep 23
Our initial conversation with Mr. Stephens was productive & reassuring. His previous experience with similar cases was obvious and very helpful, in both asking us specific questions for clarification & also addressing our own questions. Breanna is also a great asset to their team.
James O'DayJames O'Day
15:07 13 Sep 23
I have referred several friends to Hugh Stephens and they were more satisfied than they ever expected. I would refer him with confidence to anyone in need. I trust when he speaks for me, for example, in court. He is a good communicator and a deep thinker. He is well respected in his profession. He handles environmental law, injury law, and medical malpractice. He is tactful and direct and knows what he is doing. He knows the legal briar patches well.

Environmental Insurance

The attorneys at Stephens & Stephens represent policyholders in environmental insurance cost recovery claims against large and small insurance companies.

History of Environmental Insurance Law in New York State

Prior to 1966, standard Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policies provided coverage for injuries caused by “accident” (i.e., a fortuitous event, beyond the control of either party).


In 1966, the insurance industry changed to occurrence-based coverage practices, so that, after 1966, an “occurrence,” rather than an “accident,” triggered the standard CGL policy. An “occurrence” was usually defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which resulted, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” In New York State, for the purposes of “per accident” policy limits, occurrences are separated within a causal chain based upon the “unfortunate event” test, which groups multiple injuries as a single “occurrence” where they (1) arise out of the same event of unfortunate character that takes place without foresight or expectation, and (2) occur close in time with no intervening agent. Occurrences are separated within a causal chain based upon the wording of the policies, the contracting parties’ actions or conduct prior to the commencement of litigation, and New York law interpreting the word “occurrence.”

Under controlling New York law, occurrence-based CGL policies are triggered by “injury in fact” (i.e., an actual injury). Under this approach, all of the policy periods during which an insured proves some injury or damage are implicated, regardless of when the exposure occurred or when the injury was discovered. In the property damage context, this approach has been translated into a “damage-in-fact” trigger. Where property damage is caused by pollution, the key damage occurs upon contact of the contaminants with the land. So, where an insured property is contaminated, “damage” may be equated with “discharge”; but, where a third-party property is contaminated through the gradual seepage of pollutants emanating from an insured’s property, coverage is triggered not upon mere discharge, but only at the time that the pollutants reached, and so contaminated, the third-party property. Under those circumstances, “damage” may not be equated with “discharge.” There may be a “continuous trigger” where injuries-in-fact (or damages-in-fact) arose, more likely than not, continuously, incrementally, or cumulatively, during every consecutive policy period (and or consecutive policy) in a given series (e.g., in cases of the gradual contamination of earth and groundwater by leaking landfills, or in cases of progressive bodily disease, where every reproduction of damaged cells constitutes a new injury). In cases where consecutive policies are each triggered, liability is usually to be apportioned equitably (pro rata), in proportion to each insurer’s time on the risk.


From 1971 to 1982, New York State required all commercial and industrial policies to include a pollution exclusion clause, to ensure that corporate polluters bore the full burden of their environmentally harmful actions. In CGL policies before 1985, the clause usually took the form of a “qualified pollution exclusion,” which broadly excluded all specified polluting discharges or releases, except where those discharges or releases were “sudden and accidental.” A typical qualified pollution exclusion clause might read, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release, or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere, or any watercourse or body of water, but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release, or escape is sudden and accidental.” “Sudden” has been defined as “abrupt, precipitant, or brought about in a short time.” “Accidental” has been defined as “unexpected and unintended.”


In 1982, New York State amended the law to allow insurers to provide coverage for pollution, as part of a larger effort to encourage industry to handle hazardous wastes responsibly, and to safeguard the public from the consequences of rendering hazardous waste handlers financially disabled. Even after this statutory change, pollution exclusions were still incorporated into CGL policies, but after 1985, they were usually of a new generation: the “absolute pollution exclusion.” Apparently, these newer clauses gained popularity because of insurance companies’ dissatisfaction (1) with the great expense of environmental litigation over conflicting interpretations of the terms “sudden and accidental,” and (2) with the eventual judicial constructions meant to resolve these conflicting interpretations. Absolute (or “total”) pollution exclusion clauses contain no exceptions for sudden and accidental incidents, but exclude from coverage all liability based on intentional discharge (exposure), regardless of whether the consequential damages (injuries) were intended or not.