Category: Environmental

Sierra Recycling & Demolition, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Lines Ins. Co.

(United States District Court, E.D. California, November 3, 2011)

The issue in this environmental coverage dispute was whether the policy’s pollution exclusion applied to cover alleged losses stemming from the disposal of certain hazardous debris.  Specifically, a third party hired plaintiff policyholder to transport construction debris from a demolition site.  The policyholder hauled the construction debris from the site to Metropolitan Recycling Center, a private company which is not owned, leased …

Barney Greengrass, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 4, 2011)

The issue in this coverage dispute was whether the policy’s pollution exclusion applied to cover alleged losses stemming from a restaurant’s exhaust fan that allegedly caused property damage and prohibited the use of an adjoining resident’s condominium.  Specifically, the policyholder restaurant brought an action against its insurer for a declaration that it must defend and indemnify it in connection with an underlying action seeking to recover for …

Sua Ins. Co. v. S&O Invest. LLC (United States District Court, Southern District, Alabama, October 28, 2011)

The issue in this coverage dispute was whether the policy’s pollution exclusion applied to cover alleged losses from the use of Chinese Drywall in a housing tract and whether the insurer was obligated to defend or indemnify the policyholder in connection with the subsequent class action lawsuit under two policies. 

Here, the policyholder sought coverage based on products/completed operations ("PCO") rather than based on commercial general liability ("CGL"). …

Pekin Ins. Co. v. Pharmasyn, Inc. (Ill. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2011)

An Illinois appellate court ruled last week that a policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage to an insured organic compound maker for several personal injury lawsuits filed by individuals who either worked for or in the same building as the insured.

Several individuals filed suit against the insured, alleging that they were each occupants of a commercial building in which the insured, a producer of organic compounds, was located. The underlying complaint alleged that …

The AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co.  Supreme Court of Virginia, September 16, 2011

On Friday, September, 16, 2011, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in this declaratory judgment action that the insurer, Steadfast Insurance Co., did not owe policyholder, power provider The AES Corp., coverage against claims that the company’s greenhouse gas emissions destroyed the Alaskan village of Kivalina by contributing to global warming.

In a unanimous opinion, the court ruled that the claims were not covered by the policy because the village in the …

Webb Operating Co. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. (United States District Court, Eastern District Michigan, July 18, 2011)

This environmental coverage dispute arose from an underlying property damage suit and environmental cleanup involving a leaking underground storage tank.  The insurer denied insured’s claim to defend or indemnify under the policy alleging that the claims were made outside the policy period. 

Specifically, the policyholder (Webb Operating Company) operated a gas station in Highland Park, Michigan and purchased "Storage Tank System Third Party Liability and Cleanup Policy" …

Ruffin Road Venture Lot IV v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer. (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011)

In this environmental coverage dispute, the policyholder Ruffin Road, initiated an action to recover the unpaid amounts allegedly owed to it under the policy as well as for attorneys fees and punitive damages based on its claim the insurer acted in bad faith.  Specifically, Ruffin Road discovered that a pipe running beneath the property had burst. Mud, rocks, and other debris were sucked into the pipe and circulated …

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co.  (W.D. Pa. February 24, 2011)

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. was covered by several excess policies between 1981 and 1984 that obligated insurers to pay defense and indemnity costs relating to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who sued for asbestos-related injuries allegedly resulting from asbestos-containing component parts in the company’s centrifugal pumps, heat-exchange coils and air handling systems used in the construction, power generation and defense industries.  Eighteen insurers, including Federal Insurance Co., Allianz Underwriters Insurance …