Source: http://www.lexology.com, October 4, 2012 By: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliff LLP In United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., Docket No. 32,939 (N.M. S. Ct., Aug. 23, 2012), New Mexico’s highest court concluded that the “sudden and accidental” exception to the qualified pollution exclusion provides coverage for “unexpected and unintended” releases of pollutants, and does […]

Source: http://www.lexology.com, October 3, 2012 By: William C. Wagner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP An environmental contamination case set for trial based on liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) for “passive inaction and studied indifference” recently settled, but the court filings provide a valuable lesson to property owners to address contamination promptly […]

Source: http://www.lexology.com, October 5, 2012 By: Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP In its recent decision in Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140981 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2012), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri had occasion to consider whether the total […]

Source: http://www.lexology.com, October 3, 2012 By: Latham & Watkins LLP In a unanimous opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that liability for damages under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) requires evidence of a reasonable link between the discharge, the discharger, the contamination and the relief sought by the plaintiff.1 […]

Source: http://www.lexology.com, October 4, 2012 By: Gerard M. Giordano, Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard PA New Jersey property buyers need to be aware of liability for existing contamination as a result of failing to do an appropriate environmental investigation prior to purchasing. The recent case State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Timothy Shea, […]

  A new broker partner had previously placed coverage with an established environmental carrier for GL/Pollution/Professional and Excess on an environmental contractor. The carrier was non-renewing due to the class of business. Our partner broker asked if New Day could market the renewal on their behalf even though there was only two weeks before the […]

Source: http://www.fox43.com, October 1, 2012 The owners of 73 mobile home park communities, which house thousands of residents, have agreed to pay a $1,339,000 penalty to resolve allegations that they violated federal and state environmental laws and regulations concerning the treatment of sewage and drinking water. The settlement agreement was filed in federal court on […]

Source: http://www.mlive.com, October 1, 2012 By: Dave Alexander More than 150 people jammed Muskegon City Hall on Monday to hear the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality give an update on the environmental situation at the former paper mill on Muskegon Lake. Citizens were told by state environmental regulators that there are known contaminated “hot spots” […]

Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA), October 2, 2012 Posted on: http://envfpn.advisen.com Twelve years ago, the U.S. Green Building Council launched a rating system called LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, hoping that architects, engineers, designers and real estate firms would improve energy efficiency and increase the use of recycled materials and nontoxic […]

Read here about a New Jersey glass manufacturing company that has agreed to pay thousands to settle air pollution allegations.

Source: http://www.nj.com, September 26, 2012 By: MaryAnn Spoto/The Star-Ledger State environmental officials can’t go after businesses for contaminating the ground unless they have ironclad proof — and not circumstantial evidence — that the firms caused the damage, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The decision drew instant praise from business owners who say they need […]

Source: http://www.lexology.com, September 27, 2012 By: Hunton & Williams LLP In Travelers Indemnity Company v. MTS Transport, LLC, No. 11-01567, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127847 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2012), a federal court held that a pollution exclusion in an excess liability insurance policy was ambiguous and, therefore, did not bar a defense for claims […]