On August 3, 2021, in the Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) MDL the Court ruled that while the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's alter ego allegations were sufficient to pierce the corporate veil as between defendants Lukoil Americas Corporation and its subsidiary Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. for jurisdictional purposes, they were not sufficient to pierce the veil for liability purposes, nor was there successor liability, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against LAC. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alter Ego, Corporate Veil, Insurance Coverage, Multi-District Litigation, Nuisance, Pennsylvania, Spill Act, Storage Tank, Successor Liability, Water

On April 9, 2019, Judge John Z. Lee of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division denied the City of Evanston’s motion for a preliminary injunction against two utility companies in a RCRA action that sought to compel the utility companies to investigate and remediate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in the area.  After a lengthy evidentiary hearing spanning eight days, Judge Lee found that the city had failed to meet its overall burden of proving likelihood of success on the merits, in part because he believed one of the city’s main theories of contamination to be “simplistic.”  (Memorandum Opinion and Order, at *4, City of Evanston v. Northern Illinois Gas Company, No. 16 C 5692 at *19 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2019)). And on May 16, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a similar decision in Varlen Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, No. 17-3212 (7^th Cir. May 16, 2019), excluding an expert witness and granting summary judgment to the defendant because the expert's testimony regarding the cause of contamination was found to be unreliable, having failed to meet the Daubert standard. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, Duty to Defend, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Illinois, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, RCRA, Seventh Circuit, Water

Love Canal – the infamous neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York where large quantities of chemical waste was dumped, and which became the catalyst for enactment of the federal Superfund program – is still generating legal opinions, nearly 40 years after President Jimmy Carter declared a federal health emergency and Love Canal became the first Superfund site.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Damages, Defense Costs, Indemnification, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Medical Monitoring, Negligence, New York, Remediation, Second Circuit, Superfund, Toxic Torts

Last week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held in a unanimous decision that latent environmental property contamination triggered several comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies despite the fact that the contamination was not discovered until at least a decade later. In doing so, the Court resolved a question left open by two earlier Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions over whether latent property damage in “occurrence” policies is triggered at the time the damage occurs or when the damage first manifests itself.     Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, Enforcement, Enforcement Action, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Remediation

One of the finest lines that environmental attorneys walk is in protecting communications between counsel and a retained environmental consultant from disclosure in litigation.  In a recent case out of the Northern District of Indiana, Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00006 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2017), the Court found that communications between counsel and consultants retained by the counsel  were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, in large part because the consultants also performed remedial work.  However, as the work was done "in anticipation of litigation" with, among others, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and EPA, substantive communications were protected by the attorney work product doctrine.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Attorney-Client, Cleanup, Contamination, Discovery, EPA, Federal Procedure, Indiana, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Privilege, Procedure, Remediation, Stormwater, Work Product

In the latest development in Olin Corporation v. Insurance Co. of North America, No. 1:84-CV-01968, (S.D.N.Y., 11/21/2016), a 30-plus year old case between plaintiff Olin Corporation (“Olin”) and its insurance provider, defendant Insurance Company of North America (“INA”), a judge of the Southern District Court of New York ultimately ordered the insurer to reimburse Olin $1.7 million for litigation costs it incurred in connection with a 2003 lawsuit concerning hazardous waste contamination at one of Olin’s properties originating in the 1950s. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Indemnification, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, New York

As part of EPA’s investigation of a Superfund site, EPA typically issues a 104(e) information request to any person or entity that EPA believes to have information regarding release of hazardous substances at the site, including those that may be considered to be PRPs charged with the ultimate cleanup of the site.  Responding to a 104(e) request often requires the recipient to provide detailed responses regarding historical and current industrial operations, and can often set the stage for settlement negotiations with EPA and other PRPs regarding funding the investigation and remediation of the Superfund site. In an unpublished non-precedential opinion filed yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that receipt of a 104(e) information request for a Superfund site triggers an insurer’s duty to defend a policyholder for attorneys’ fees and related costs associated with responding to the request.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Decisions of Note, Defense Costs, Duty to Defend, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Ninth Circuit

In New Jersey, a property owner affected by a release from an underground storage tank cannot succeed on a private nuisance or trespass action absent demonstration of the tank owner’s intentional, negligent or reckless conduct.  Moreover, neither the tank owner’s insurer’s agreement to remediate the affected property nor the migration of the leaked substance onto the affected property conveys the affected property owner third party beneficiary status such that the property owner can maintain a bad faith action against the insurance provider.  In Ross v. Lowitz, No. A-101-13 (N.J. Aug. 6, 2015), the New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision narrowing the avenues to recovery of property owners affected by a release from a neighboring underground storage tank by clarifying these two rules. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, New Jersey, Nuisance, Remediation, Residential, Storage Tank, Trespass

An issue that insurers and industry have grappled with is whether a company can obtain environmental insurance coverage for costs to address violations of the Clean Air Act, when the costs at issue are aimed at curbing future air emissions, rather than remediating emissions that have already occurred.  Last week, one federal judge in Louisiana answered that question in the affirmative in La Gen Louisiana Gen. LLC, et al. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., Dkt. No. 3:10-cv-00516 (M.D. La., Aug. 5, 2015).  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cases to Watch, CERCLA, Clean Air Act, Decisions of Note, Defense Costs, Electric, Emissions, Energy, Enforcement Action, EPA, Fifth Circuit, Indemnification, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Louisiana, Remediation

Often, the most important concern for a landowner facing a cost recovery action is not liability, but rather insurance coverage.  And then, the question may not be “is it covered” but “how much am I covered for?”  On August 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its opinon in California v. Continental Insurance Co.. No. S170560 (Ca. Aug. 9, 2012), providing some comfort to parties locked in expensive clean-up battles. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Class Actions, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Insurance Coverage, Remediation, Superfund