Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
Topics
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- 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
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- 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
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Consent Decree
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
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.
The case, The Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Roy’s Plumbing, Inc., Dkt. No. 16-2511-cv (2d Cir., May 31, 2017), is an insurance coverage dispute for claims in an underlying personal injury and property damage litigation filed by three families residing near Love Canal against a local plumbing company, that the homeowners claim negligently performed various sewer line repairs that disturbed sediments from the Love Canal Superfund containment area, resulting in discharges of contamination onto their properties. The homeowners also assert that the plumbing company’s alleged negligent actions included pressure washing local roadways and storm drains, which further dispersed the contamination. The homeowners sought damages, including punitive damages, an injunction for remediation of the contamination, and medical monitoring.
The plumbing company filed a claim against its insurer for defense and indemnity of the homeowner lawsuit, and the insurer disclaimed coverage under a “pollution exclusion” in the plumbing company’s policy. The pollution exclusion – a standard provision in general commercial liability insurance policies – excluded coverage for “bodily injury or property damages which would not have occurred in whole or part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape, or emission of pollutants at any time.” After the plumbing company refused to withdraw its claims for coverage under the insurance policy, the insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action to affirm that it was not obligated to provide coverage for the homeowner lawsuit. The plumbing company counterclaimed, arguing the policy did provide coverage, which placed the pollution exclusion issue squarely before the court.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York agreed with the insurance company and granted summary judgment – confirming that the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the plumbing company in the underlying homeowner lawsuit.
In a recent summary order, the United States District Court for the Second Circuit agreed with the District Court, and affirmed the summary judgment ruling. The Second Circuit noted that an insurer’s duty to defend is “exceedingly broad” under New York law, and an insurer bears a “heavy burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint cast the pleadings wholly within the exclusion,” in order to deny coverage. But, here, the homeowner lawsuit sought personal injury and property damages caused by the release of hazardous substances, which fell directly within the policy’s pollution exclusion. Therefore, the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the plumbing company in the lawsuit.
While this case does not necessarily break new ground, it reaffirms that the pollution exclusion in commercial insurance policies is alive and well, and will be upheld when the facts fall within the language of the exclusion.