Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
July 16, 2002, Decided
Civil Action No. 3:97 CV 2341 (SRU)
[*404] RULING AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Yale University ("Yale") seeks a declaration that it is entitled to insurance coverage under certain third-party liability and first-party property insurance policies issued by the defendants for expenditures Yale incurred to address the presence of lead and asbestos in buildings it owns. Several of the defendant insurers (collectively the "Insurers") have moved for summary judgment raising various policy-based defenses to coverage. 1 Yale has vigorously opposed the Insurers' motions.
[**3] [*405] After hearing oral argument and considering the parties' submissions, the court concludes that the Insurers are entitled to summary judgment on the third-party liability policies because Yale has failed to come forward with any evidence that the expenses for which it seeks coverage were incurred because of third-party property damage as required by the policies. The court further concludes that the Insurers are entitled to partial summary judgment on the first-party property policies. Specifically, the Insurers are entitled to summary judgment on Yale's claims for coverage under the all risk policies for property loss or damage in the form of asbestos contamination because such property loss or damage is excluded from coverage by the all risk policies' "Contaminant or Pollutant" exclusions. The Insurers are also entitled to summary judgment on Yale's claims for coverage under the all risk policies for lead-paint contamination, except to the extent that Yale seeks coverage for costs it incurred to remediate non-voluntary lead-based paint remediation. Finally, the Insurers are entitled to summary judgment on Yale's claims for coverage under the specified peril policies because Yale [**4] has failed to come forward with any evidence of the existence of applicable coverage.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
224 F. Supp. 2d 402 *; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17657 **
YALE UNIVERSITY v. CIGNA INSURANCE CO., ET AL.
Disposition: [**1] Motion for summary judgment granted. Motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.
coverage, asbestos, contamination, insured, policies, property damage, losses, third-party, costs, argues, physical loss, peril, paint, wear and tear, directives, faulty, pollution exclusion, parties, air, fortuitous, asbestos-containing, ambiguous, fortuity, summary judgment, mere presence, ensuing loss, deterioration, pollutant, remediate, ensuing
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Burdens of Proof, General Overview, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Contracts Law, Defenses, Ambiguities & Mistakes, Exclusions, Contract Interpretation, Intent, Ordinary & Usual Meanings, Plain Language, Question of Law, Ambiguous Terms, Unambiguous Terms, Property Insurance, Coverage, Business Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Property Claims, Business & Corporate Compliance, Hazardous Wastes & Toxic Substances, Asbestos, Work Practice Standards, Environmental Law, Emission Standards, Stationary Emission Sources, Hazardous Pollutants, Water Quality, Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Sources, Real Property Law, Environmental Regulations, Indoor Air & Water Quality, Justiciability, Standing, Third Party Standing, Asbestos Claims, Types of Insurance, Marine & Inland Marine Insurance, Exclusions, Entire Contract, All Risks, Fortuity Doctrine, Property, Comprehensive Coverage, Property Damage, Obligations, Covered Losses, Known Loss Doctrine, Named Perils, Concurrent Causes Doctrine, Ensuing Loss Provisions, Coverage Favored, Contract Formation, Mistake, Construction Against Insurers