|
Taft's Environmental Practice provides nationally recognized services in the areas of trial practice, Superfund defense and negotiation, enforcement defense, cost-recovery for plaintiffs and defendants, criminal environmental defense, environmental insurance and toxic tort litigation, mold and sick building litigation, lawsuits involving environmental problems discovered as a result of real property transfers or mergers and acquisitions, Brownfields redevelopment, defense of claims of occupational exposures, and administrative proceedings before state and federal agencies. Taft's environmental lawyers also regularly are engaged in insurance disputes concerning environmental issues and agricultural issues involving CAFOs and CFOs. As a Taft client, you can utilize the capital of 31 intensely motivated and focused attorneys in all facets of environmental law.
|
City Fumbles $59 Million CERCLA Claim
Private-party plaintiffs unknowingly sabotage their CERCLA cost recovery claims all too often by failing to understand and comply with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed this recently for the City of Colton, California ("Colton") in City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.-West, 2010 WL 2991399 (9th Cir. 2010). Colton's fumble cost the city its claim for past response costs of $4 million and its declaratory judgment claim to establish liability for future response costs estimated between $55 and $75 million.
» continue reading
|
|
Manufacturer of Dry Cleaning Machine Not Liable Under CERCLA
The manufacturer of a perchlorethlyene ("PCE" or "PERC") recycling machine was recently found not liable as an "arranger" or "transporter" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, 2010 WL 3133195 (E.D.Cal. 2010). Team Enterprises ("Team"), a dry cleaner, asserted that R.R. Street & Co. ("Street") was liable to pay for the cleanup of PERC contamination released at its laundry facility. Team alleged that Street was liable under various legal theories, including nuisance, trespass, and as a CERCLA "arranger" or "transporter."
» continue reading |
Court Rules Against Property Owners in Vapor Intrusion / Groundwater Citizen Suit Case
For over 70 years, summary judgment motions have rarely been granted in fact-intensive cases-until now. In Voggenthaller v. Maryland Square, LLC , a federal district court in Nevada granted plaintiff-homeowners' motion for summary judgment finding that their groundwater, contaminated by dry-cleaning chemicals, constituted an imminent and substantial endangerment under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA").
» continue reading |
Greenhouse Gas Air Permits: Five Things Businesses Should Do
U.S. EPA recently proposed two rules requiring businesses planning to build new facilities, or make major expansions to existing facilities, to obtain permits under the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. (Hereafter, "GHG/PSD permits.")
These rules, published August 12, 2010, would implement EPA's May 2010 GHG Tailoring Rule, which requires power plants, industrial boilers, oil refineries, and other large combustion sources to obtain permits for GHG emissions beginning in 2011.
» continue reading |
Seventh Circuit Upholds Indiana's Pollution Exclusion Jurisprudence
Indiana is known for the tough standards it imposes on insurance companies with respect to withholding coverage based on policy exclusions. For example, in environmental contamination cases, insurers often attempt to withhold coverage based on pollution exclusion clauses-provisions typically included in commercial general liability ("CGL") policies that seek to exclude coverage for claims based on environmental contamination. Since the Indiana Supreme Court's 1996 decision in American States Insurance Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996), however, Indiana courts will not exclude coverage based on pollution exclusion clauses unless the language of the insurance policy explicitly excludes the "pollutant" at issue. If the policy language is vague as to whether the pollutant is included, then the pollution exclusion clause does not apply.
» continue reading
|
Environmental Law Insight is used to inform our clients and friends of significant
new developments and current issues in environmental law. For more
information about Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, please visit
http://www.taftlaw.com.
These materials have been prepared by
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP for informational purposes only and
are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and
receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. No
person or organization should act upon this information without first
seeking professional counsel.
We cannot and do not represent you
until our client intake process is completed. Further, we reserve the
right to accept or decline representing any person or organization in
any matter. Accordingly, please do not send us any confidential
information about any matter until you receive a written statement from
us advising you that we represent you (an "engagement letter"). When
you receive an engagement letter from one of our attorneys, you will be
our client, and we may exchange confidential information freely. Again,
do not send us unsolicited confidential information until you speak
with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that
information to us.
Some aspects of this Web site may allow you
to register for newsletters, events, functions, or seminars hosted by,
sponsored by, or associated with Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
The transmission or receipt of any information related to registration
for any event or service does not create an attorney-client
relationship.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP's Web site and
associated materials may provide links to other websites that may be
useful or informative.These links to third party sites or information
are not intended, and should not be interpreted by readers, as
constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation
of the third party information, products or services found there.
The following statement is required by many states, including Kentucky: "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT."
|
|
|
|
|
September 2010 Issue
· City Fumbles CERCLA Claim
· Manufacturer Not Liable Under
CERCLA Claim
· Court Rules Against Property
Owners in Vapor Intrusion Case
· Greenhouse Gas Air Permits
· Seventh Circuit Upholds Indiana's
Pollution Exclusion Jurisprudence
|
|
