Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Continental Ins. Co. v. Beecham, Inc.

Continental Ins. Co. v. Beecham, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

August 31, 1993, Decided ; August 31, 1993, Filed

Civil Action No. 88-2890(MTB)

Opinion

 [*1029] OPINION

BEFORE: HON. MARYANNE TRUMP BARRY, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This action involves an insurance coverage dispute between Beecham, Inc. ("Beecham") and its insurer, the Continental Insurance Company ("Continental"), with respect to the environmental contamination of a facility in Myerstown, Pennsylvania previously owned by Beecham. Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment for declaratory relief concerning the rights and liabilities under the contracts of insurance entered into by the parties, which motions, almost by definition, raise a plethora of issues.

 [*1030]  On an initial consideration of the motions but prior to this opinion, the court concluded that with respect to the parties' dispute as to whether the substantive law of Pennsylvania or New Jersey should be applied to this dispute, New Jersey law would govern. At the time the court made this determination,  [**2]  one of the central issues in this litigation, i.e. the meaning and interpretation to be given the "pollution exclusion" clause in the insurance policies at issue here, was before the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Morton International, Inc. v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America. Accordingly, by letter dated March 5, 1993, the court advised the parties that the choice of law determination had been made, that New Jersey law would be applied, and that the court would await the decision of the Supreme Court in Morton before determining the substantive issues in this litigation. That case now having been decided by the Supreme Court, this court reaffirms its initial conclusion that New Jersey law applies and considers the remaining issues in light of Morton. For the reasons which follow, Continental's motion for summary judgment will be denied and Beecham's cross-motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. Factual and Procedural History

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

836 F. Supp. 1027 *; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19296 **

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BEECHAM, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

insured, coverage, pollution exclusion, contamination, policies, occurrence, arsenic, plant, site, pollution, summary judgment motion, contacts, parties, summary judgment, choice of law, Environmental, insurance contract, asserts, remediation, contracts, risks, amended complaint, property damage, own property, estopped, premiums, sudden and accidental, bottled water, deny coverage, Certification

Civil Procedure, Federal & State Interrelationships, Choice of Law, Forum & Place, General Overview, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Significant Relationships, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Exclusions, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Exclusions, Pollution, Property Insurance, Pollution, Intentional Discharges, Preliminary Considerations, Erie Doctrine, Procedure, Evidence & Trial, Burdens of Proof, Remedies, Declaratory Judgments, Reasonable Expectations, Business Insurance, Duty to Defend, Intentional Acts, Occurrences, Contractual Liabilities, Estoppel & Waiver, Fortuity Doctrine, Known Loss Doctrine, Policy Coverage Issues, Directors & Officers Liability Insurance, Insured & Insurer Obligations, Notice of Claims, Liability & Performance Standards, Notice to Insurers, Prejudice to Insurers, Coverage, Real Property, Property Claims, Owned Property