The court holds that insurance companies have a duty to defend an insured chemical company under its comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies against claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for response costs and natural resource damages under the Comprehensive Environmental R...

The court holds that a pollution exclusion clause in a comprehensive general liability insurance policy does not bar an insured county's right to indemnification of amounts that it must pay in lawsuits resulting from pollution from a landfill. The clause provided that the insurer was not obligated t...

The court holds that a local ordinance imposing geographic restrictions on the sources of waste for a regional medical waste incinerator does not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A commercial enterprise obtained authorization to construct a medical waste incinerator, and after c...

The court holds that a computer circuit manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement under its comprehensive general liability insurance policy of expenses incurred pursuant to a government consent decree requiring it to clean up toxic waste contamination at a former manufacturing facility. The court f...

The court holds that two insurance companies have no duty to defend or indemnify a company that served as the intermediary for the disposal of dioxin-contaminated waste against personal injury and property damage claims allegedly arising from contamination at Missouri sites where the waste was spray...

The court holds that a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notifying a potentially responsible party (PRP) that it may be liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not a "suit" triggering an insurer's duty to...

The court holds that the owner of a Minnesota site contaminated with hazardous substances has stated a cause of action, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), and common law, against a dissolved corpora...

The court holds that a lawsuit by individuals against a chemical company for damages based on injuries resulting from exposure to thorium-containing fill material was properly removed to federal court, because the chemical company brought a third-party complaint against officials of the U.S. Environ...

The court holds that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must prepare a new environmental assessment (EA) for the shipment of 118 spent nuclear fuel rods from Taiwan through the port of Hampton Roads, Virginia, to a processing facility on the Savannah River in South Carolina, because its 1991 EA for...

The court affirms a district court decision that Montana's two-year statute of limitations for property damage claims bars claims by a Superfund site owner against manufacturers of chemicals discarded by the owner on the site. The court holds that the discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limit...