ACE Introduces Broader Coverage to Protect Against Operational Environmental Risks
Business Wire

March 17, 2015

Streamlined Premises Pollution Liability Policy Includes: Built-in Coverage for First-Party Business Interruption, Catastrophe Management, Emergency Response Costs and Access to ACE ALERTSM

PHILADELPHIA–(BUSINESS WIRE)– ACE Group today announced the enhancement of its Premises Pollution Liability (PPL) and Premises Pollution Liability Portfolio (PPL Port) Insurance policies to provide additional coverages for growing environmental day-to-day operational exposures faced by both domestic and multinational businesses. Additionally, the enhanced PPL and PPL Port coverages have been redesigned to accommodate industry-specific endorsements that provide specific coverage for Healthcare, Public and Educational Entities and U.S. Multinational businesses to address a variety of residential, commercial, retail and industrial risks. Each new policy will receive access to ACE ALERTSM (ACE Logistical Environmental Response Technology) — ACE’s complimentary program that offers 24/7 immediate support for environmental releases of hazardous materials and other regulated substances.

The ACE USA Environmental Risk Premises Pollution Liability policies serve stakeholders in residential, commercial, retail and industrial facilities. Insurance coverage is provided with limits up to $50 million and with a minimum premium of $10,000.

Key features of the base PPL policy include:

  • Coverage for identified sites within the United States (coverage for international jurisdictions is available by endorsement)
  • Third-party liability coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Natural Resource Damages
  • Remediation expenses covered for both on-site releases and off-site migration

Continue Reading

Will Massachusetts’ New UST Regulations Be A Game Changer?

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Brian P. Moran

March 3, 2015

You can bet on it! The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a new set of regulations effective January 2, 2015 that will create major burdens for underground storage tank (UST) owners and operators. These regulations, codified as 310 CMR 80.00, contain expansive requirements that apply to USTs containing motor fuel, large heating oil tanks, and emergency generator tanks, and govern the design, installation, maintenance, operation, record-keeping, transfer, and removal of USTs.

For tank owners and operators, the new rules will make UST compliance more difficult, requiring greater effort and coordination, and significant increases in annual compliance costs. The top issues tank owners and operators will face include:

Continue Reading

CERCLA’s Confusion Between Section 107 And Section 113

Foley Hoag LLP
Robert S. Sanoff

February 27, 2015

Over a decade after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall, the divide between CERCLA Section 107 cost recovery claims and Section 113 contribution claims remains unsettled.  PRPs incurring response costs at Superfund sites would almost always prefer to seek reimbursement of those costs as a Section 107 claim given its more favorable statute of limitations and joint and several liability standard. However, the post-Aviall case law offers little clarity as to the precise dividing line between Section 107 and 113 claims.

The recent Michigan decision in Ford Motor Company v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., the 2014 Sixth Circuit decision in Hobart Corporation v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. and the 2014 Montana decision in ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Company might suggest that post-Aviall courts favor treating claims for reimbursement of response costs incurred by PRPs pursuant to a consent order with the government as claims for contribution. However, the Seventh Circuit decision in Bernstein v. Blankert in 2012 went out of its way to say that a PRP which incurred response costs pursuant to a CERCLA consent order with the government still had a Section 107 claim at least until the consent decree work was finalized and the PRP had formally resolved its liability.  To further confuse things, a federal court in New York last year ruled in HLP Properties, LLC v. Consolidated Edison Company that different PRPs seeking to recover response costs for the same site were in some instances entitled to bring Section 107 claims but in other instances Section 113 claims.

Continue Reading

Regulation of Chemicals in Consumer Products on the Rise

Foley & Lardner LLP
Louis J. Thorson

March 11, 2015

In recent years, manufacturers have seen a marked increase in state regulation of chemicals in consumer products. While the regulation of hazardous and toxic chemicals in consumer products is certainly not a new concept, particularly on the federal level, the proliferation of state regulation creates many new regulatory burdens and potential pitfalls that manufacturers must account for to avoid costly violations and regulatory scrutiny.

At the state level, the most significant new regulations are California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulations (the “CSCPR”). The CSCPR were passed in 2013 and the implementation of these new regulations is ramping up. Under the CSCPR, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) is charged with identifying hazardous, or potentially hazardous, chemicals being used in consumer products, and then forcing manufacturers to at least consider whether safer alternatives exist. Following this “alternatives analysis,” the DTSC has the authority to implement a wide variety of measures designed to restrict the use of the hazardous chemical, including an outright ban under certain circumstances. The DTSC identified the first three products for which it will require an alternatives analysis (known as “priority products”) in March 2014. This list is expected to be finalized and the alternatives analysis requirement triggered later this year.

Continue Reading