| 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. |
Has the Ohio Supreme Court Opened the Door for Insurance Coverage for Pollution Claims?
On December 30, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court ended its calendar year with a decision which, on its face, appeared to have limited application to insurance coverage when pranks are committed which result in serious injuries. At stake in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 2010-Ohio-6312, was the evaluation of "inferred intent" where the insureds claimed the insurance companies were not entitled to rely on the policy's intentional act exclusion.
» continue reading |
|
What You Need to Know About the Changes to the Federal Rules Regarding Expert Witnesses
The general rule that we have observed throughout our professional careers is that all communications, data, correspondence, emails or other material provided by an attorney to an expert witness is fair game for discovery. However, at the end of 2010, that will no longer be the case under the federal rules. Generally, under the amended federal rules, a testifying expert will be treated in some ways the same as a consulting expert for purposes of the work product privilege.
» continue reading
|
|
| Indiana Supreme Court Rules Insurance Policies Are to Be Interpreted Under Single State Law and Declines to Revisit Its Rejection of the Pollution Exclusion
On December 30, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Standard Fusee Corp., Case No. 49S04-1006-CV, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2010), and held that Indiana courts are to interpret insurance policies under the law of a single state, regardless of whether the insured has multiple sites in multiple states. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' application of a "site-specific" approach in which that court interpreted coverage claims for environmental contamination at an Indiana site under Indiana law and claims for environmental contamination at a California site under California law. Instead, the...
» continue reading |
| EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program Update
On December 28, 2010, EPA's Office of Management and Budget completed its review of proposed draft revisions to EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring ("UCM") program. Through the UCM program, EPA identifies various unregulated contaminants to be monitored and reported by specified categories of drinking water providers. An initial list of 26 unregulated contaminants was identified for monitoring in 1999, with a second list of an additional 25 contaminants released in 2007.
» continue reading |
|
Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Blitz from EPA
EPA has issued a veritable grab bag of greenhouse gas rules in the past two months, many of them just in time for Christmas. Here is a brief summary of some of the more significant EPA actions.
» continue reading
|
| Can Public Entities Hire Contingency Fee-Paid Attorneys to Prosecute Public Nuisance Cases?
By declining certiorari, the United States Supreme Court let stand a decision from the California Supreme Court allowing public entities to employ contingency fee-paid attorneys to prosecute certain public nuisance cases where the threat of criminal punishment is not present and where the public entities' attorneys retain control and supervision of the case.
» continue reading
|
|
New Metal Fabricating and Finishing Air Toxics Rules for Small Sources Are Around the Corner
EPA's new air rules for small sources of air toxics, or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), in nine categories of metal fabricating and finishing take effect on July 11, 2011. The new rules are part of EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and set the maximum achievable control technologies that must be applied for sources with the potential to emit less than 25 tons per year of HAPs, or area sources, in the following categories:
» 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."
|
|
|
|
|
January 2011 Issue
· Door Opened for Insurance Coverage for Pollution Claims? · Changes to the Federal Rules Regarding Expert Witnesses · Court Rules Insurance Policies to be Interpreted Under Single State Law · EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program Update
· Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Blitz from EPA · Can Public Entities Hire Contingency Fee-Paid Attorneys to Prosecute Public Nuisance Cases? · New Metal Fabricating and Finishing Air Toxics Rules for Small Sources Are Around the Corner |
|
