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
JUDGE’S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION’S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
APPELLANTS IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED ROYALTY PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN AFFILIATE CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT TO NEW YORK FRANCHISE TAXES (CT APP).
DEFENDANT APPEARED IN COURT WITH A SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO INFORMED THE COURT ANOTHER LEGAL AID LAWYER WAS BEING ASSIGNED TO DEFENDANT’S CASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT “WITHOUT COUNSEL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 30.30; THE ASSOCIATED SPEEDY-TRIAL TIME-PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP). ​
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).
THE JURY NOTE REQUESTED THE “DEFINITIONS” OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED THE JUDGE TO ALSO REREAD THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE JUDGE REFUSED; BECAUSE THE JURY’S NOTE WAS SPECIFIC AND DID NOT REQUEST THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION, THE JUDGE PROPERLY DENIED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST (CT APP).
THE DEFENDANT’S MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS 20 YEARS BUT THE JUDGE REPEATEDLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WAS FACING 45 YEARS; THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (CT APP).
There Is No Cause of Action for “Negligent Handling” of a Dog in New York

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,...