Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

Second Circuit Canvases Case Law, Upholds Pollution Exclusion

Steptoe LLP
Steptoe LLP
Contributor
Steptoe LLP

Steptoe LLP

Steptoe International (UK) LLP has built a strong reputation for providing top-quality regulatory,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Steptoe LLP

In a recent case,the Second Circuit, applying New York law, affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order holding that three liability insurers had no duty to defend their policyholder against environmental contamination claims because their policies’ respective pollution exclusions barred coverage for pollution resulting from intentional conduct.

United StatesInsurance

In Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al., No. 12-4287-CV, 2013 WL 4753564 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2013), the Second Circuit, applying New York law, affirmed the district court's summary judgment order holding that three liability insurers had no duty to defend their policyholder against environmental contamination claims because their policies' respective pollution exclusions barred coverage for pollution resulting from intentional conduct.

The policyholder in Emerson owned property in New York that it had leased out for industrial operations since the 1960s. In 2000, a dry well containing hazardous substances was discovered on the property and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) demanded that the policyholder pay for the investigation and remediation of the contamination. See Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Crosby, No. 03-CV-6530, 2007 WL 4118299, *1 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). The policyholder subsequently sought a

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from