Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
- New Jersey Appellate Division Finds The New Jersey Constitution Does Not Provide A Fundamental Right To “A Stable Environment”
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
Topics
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Consent Decree
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
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.
From 1956 to 1971, the State of California owned and operated the Stringfellow Acid Pits waste site. In 1998, a federal court found that California was liable for all past and future clean-up costs at the site, somewhere between $50 and $700 million. California thus turned for indemnification to the insurance companies who had issued excess commercial liability policies from 1964 to 1976, a time period during which the parties stipulated that there was continuous property damage.
The trial court that heard the matter held that while each carrier could be liable for injuries occuring not only during, but also outside of its policy period(s), the policies themselves could not be “stacked” or combined. Rather, California was limited to pursuing one carrier and recovering only up to the limits of that one policy. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing with the trial court that each insurer could be held liable for the continuing property damage that had occurred even outside of their policy periods, but also held that the policies in question could be stacked such that the sums available to California consisted of the combined policy limits of all of the policies.
California Supeme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal. With respect to the applicable time periods, the Court rejected the pro rata methodology used in several states, wherein each insurance company is liable for only its pro rata share (in its simplest form, based upon the length of time its insurance was in effect). Instead, the Court held that “all sums” language is not limited to the damages which may accrue only during the policy period, but rather all amounts the insured “shall become obligated to pay” as a result of a triggering event.
Turning to the stacking issue, the Court then went further, deciding that since all of the policies covered the property damage at issue, they were all available to California. Relying in part on the Pennsylvania case of J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 626 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1993), the Court opined that the stacking rule “means that the insured has immediate access to the insurance it purchased,” receiving exactly what it has paid for. Additionally, the Court noted that the all-sums-with-stacking rule “resolves the question of insurance coverage as equitably as possible, . . . comports with the parties’ reasonable expectations, [and] ascertains each insurer’s liability with comparatively uncomplicated calculation.” Which means that determining the amount of insurance coverage available to a PRP in California may be the only “uncomplicated calculation” in any environmental recovery case.