ELR Citation: 43 ELR 20059
No(s). 11-16272 (9th Cir. Mar 15, 2013)

The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of an insurance company's subrogation suit for recovery of insurance payments made to its insured for environmental response costs the insured incurred cleaning up pollutants released on its property. The company claimed that the defendants should be held jointly and severally liable for the response costs because they released hazardous substances that migrated to the insured's property. But the insurance company lacked standing to bring suit under CERCLA §107(a) because it did not incur any response costs related to the removal or remediation of a polluted site, and because the common law principle of subrogation does not apply to §107(a). Nor may the insurance company bring a subrogation claim under CERLCA §112(c). The company did not allege that the insured was a "claimant" or that it had made a claim either to the Superfund or to a potentially liable party. And the insurance company's state-law claims were time barred.