Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
NJ Court Rules EPA Notice Letter Triggers Coverage
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: September 23, 2016
Key Contacts
Back
NJ Court Makes Key Ruling Over Receipt of EPA Notice Letter
Ruling on an issue of first impression in New Jersey, a New Jersey court has held in Cooper Industries LLC v. Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mutual Co. et al that receiving a General Notice Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) can trigger coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy.But why does this EPA notice letter matter in the first place?
The EPA Notice Letter
On March 10, 2010, the EPA issued a General Notice Letter to Cooper Industries LLC, naming Cooper as a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) for pollution remediation of a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River known as the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. In the General Notice Letter, the EPA maintained that Cooper was responsible for the cleanup as the successor to the McGraw-Edison Company.
The agency also requested that Cooper become a cooperating party by participating in a Cooperating Parties Group Agreement (CPG Agreement), which is a type of settlement between and among the EPA and other potentially responsible parties. The EPA warned that if Cooper declined to join the cooperating group, the EPA “may apply the CERCLA enforcement process, pursuant to Section 106(a) and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9606(a) and §9607(a) and other laws.”
The Insurance Coverage Dispute
In May 2011, Cooper notified OneBeacon Insurance Company, whom Cooper contends issued policies to Cooper’s predecessor, McGraw-Edison, of the EPA General Notice Letter and demanded that OneBeacon provide Cooper with a defense to the EPA action. OneBeacon refused to provide a defense to Cooper. As a result, Cooper assumed its own defense and entered into the CPG Agreement.The company subsequently filed a declaratory action against OneBeacon and its other insurance carriers seeking indemnification in connection with the EPA action. Cooper maintains that, as a result of OneBeacon’s failure to provide Cooper with a defense, it has incurred (and is continuing to incur) more than $4.1 million in defense costs. Among other arguments raised, OneBeacon contends that its duty to defend has not been triggered because the EPA’s notice letter to Cooper is not a “suit,” as the term “suit” plainly means some type of court proceeding.
The Court’s Decision
The court held that the General Notice letter did constitute a suit, triggering OneBeacon’s duty to defend Cooper. In reaching his decision, Judge Garry J. Furnari noted that many other jurisdictions have adopted the same position. Judge Furnari also highlighted the fact that the EPA relies on Notice Letters to encourage cooperation, subjecting those who fail to comply to contempt proceedings, fines, and treble damages and barring them from filing a contribution action against settling PRPs. “[G]iven the coercive nature of CERCLA, it would be naive to characterize the EPA letter as a request for voluntary action,” he wrote.“Had Cooper failed to take action, and instead waited for the EPA to file a lawsuit, it would have been subject to strict joint and several liability and other potential damages under CERCLA,” Judge Furnari further explained. “While the reasonableness of Cooper’s settlement with the CPG may very well be at issue later in this case, there is no question that a policy in favor of triggering coverage before a formal complaint is filed serves to enhance the important functions of the Statute. To hold otherwise would discourage prompt and cooperative remediation efforts and the timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites.”
Given Judge Furnari’s decision, insureds who receive a CERCLA General Notice letter from the EPA should immediately notify their carriers and contact their attorneys in order to secure coverage for related costs.
Otherwise, if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
NJ Court Rules EPA Notice Letter Triggers Coverage
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
NJ Court Makes Key Ruling Over Receipt of EPA Notice Letter
Ruling on an issue of first impression in New Jersey, a New Jersey court has held in Cooper Industries LLC v. Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mutual Co. et al that receiving a General Notice Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) can trigger coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy.But why does this EPA notice letter matter in the first place?
The EPA Notice Letter
On March 10, 2010, the EPA issued a General Notice Letter to Cooper Industries LLC, naming Cooper as a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) for pollution remediation of a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River known as the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. In the General Notice Letter, the EPA maintained that Cooper was responsible for the cleanup as the successor to the McGraw-Edison Company.
The agency also requested that Cooper become a cooperating party by participating in a Cooperating Parties Group Agreement (CPG Agreement), which is a type of settlement between and among the EPA and other potentially responsible parties. The EPA warned that if Cooper declined to join the cooperating group, the EPA “may apply the CERCLA enforcement process, pursuant to Section 106(a) and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9606(a) and §9607(a) and other laws.”
The Insurance Coverage Dispute
In May 2011, Cooper notified OneBeacon Insurance Company, whom Cooper contends issued policies to Cooper’s predecessor, McGraw-Edison, of the EPA General Notice Letter and demanded that OneBeacon provide Cooper with a defense to the EPA action. OneBeacon refused to provide a defense to Cooper. As a result, Cooper assumed its own defense and entered into the CPG Agreement.The company subsequently filed a declaratory action against OneBeacon and its other insurance carriers seeking indemnification in connection with the EPA action. Cooper maintains that, as a result of OneBeacon’s failure to provide Cooper with a defense, it has incurred (and is continuing to incur) more than $4.1 million in defense costs. Among other arguments raised, OneBeacon contends that its duty to defend has not been triggered because the EPA’s notice letter to Cooper is not a “suit,” as the term “suit” plainly means some type of court proceeding.
The Court’s Decision
The court held that the General Notice letter did constitute a suit, triggering OneBeacon’s duty to defend Cooper. In reaching his decision, Judge Garry J. Furnari noted that many other jurisdictions have adopted the same position. Judge Furnari also highlighted the fact that the EPA relies on Notice Letters to encourage cooperation, subjecting those who fail to comply to contempt proceedings, fines, and treble damages and barring them from filing a contribution action against settling PRPs. “[G]iven the coercive nature of CERCLA, it would be naive to characterize the EPA letter as a request for voluntary action,” he wrote.“Had Cooper failed to take action, and instead waited for the EPA to file a lawsuit, it would have been subject to strict joint and several liability and other potential damages under CERCLA,” Judge Furnari further explained. “While the reasonableness of Cooper’s settlement with the CPG may very well be at issue later in this case, there is no question that a policy in favor of triggering coverage before a formal complaint is filed serves to enhance the important functions of the Statute. To hold otherwise would discourage prompt and cooperative remediation efforts and the timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites.”
Given Judge Furnari’s decision, insureds who receive a CERCLA General Notice letter from the EPA should immediately notify their carriers and contact their attorneys in order to secure coverage for related costs.
Otherwise, if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.