You are here: / / IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT...
,

IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the insured, Keyspan Gas, not the insurer, Century, bore the risk of damages from environmental contamination during the years that coverage for such damage was not available:

The liability underlying this insurance dispute emanates from environmental contamination caused by manufactured gas plants (MGPs) owned and operated by KeySpan’s predecessor … .Gas production at the sites began in the late 1880s and early 1900s. After operations ceased decades later, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) determined that there had been long-term, gradual environmental damage at both sites due to contaminants, such as tar, seeping nto the ground and leeching into groundwater. The DEC required KeySpan to undertake costly remediation efforts … . …

… [Environmental contamination] coverage was not available to utilities until approximately 1925, and … a “sudden and accidental pollution exclusion” was later generally adopted by the insurance industry sometime in or after October 1970. Thus, KeySpan argued, the allocation should not take into account any years prior to the availability, or after the unavailability, of the applicable coverage. * * *

… [T]he Appellate Division … [held] that “under the insurance policies at issue, Century does not have to indemnify KeySpan for losses that are attributable to time periods when liability insurance was otherwise unavailable in the marketplace” … . * * *

The policyholder is the one who allegedly caused the injury and, therefore, who ultimately will be financially responsible should insurance prove insufficient” … . …

… “[T]he very essence of pro rata allocation is that the insurance policy language limits indemnification to losses and occurrences during the policy period” … . Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02116, CtApp 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/POLLUTION (INSURANCE LAW, (IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/UTILITIES (INSURANCE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))

You might also like
NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES DO NOT ALLOW A SINGLE ADULT AND ADULT CHILD TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, ADULT CHILD ALLOWED TEMPORARY RESIDENCY TO CARE FOR HIS MOTHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER STATUS UPON THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER (CT APP).
A “Statutory Resident” of New York for Income Tax Purposes Must Actually Reside In New York, Not Merely Maintain Property in New York
No “Exigent Circumstances”/Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Purse Incident to Arrest for Trespassing Not Justified
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).
DEFENDANT MAY NOT APPEAL OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK AN “ILLEGALLY LENIENT” SENTENCE BECAUSE THE SENTENCE DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS A DINNER GUEST IN HIS FRIEND’S APARTMENT WHEN THE POLICE RAIDED IT; OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE RAID LED TO A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE APARTMENT; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE RECEIVED MAIL AT THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH AND THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).
Normal Behavior of Horse (Jerking Head Back) Not Actionable​
PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL... PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT,...