Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that costs for removal of 115 drums of hazardous materials were not covered because no damage had occurred, but that costs for a government-ordered cleanup of spilled hazardous materials were \damages\ and therefore covered
• holding that costs for removal of 115 drums of hazardous materials were not covered because no damage had occurred, but that costs for a government-ordered cleanup of .spilled hazardous materials were “damages” and therefore covered
• explaining that it is “appropriate, in construing an insurance policy, to consider what an objectively reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language, would expect to be covered”
• stating that if there are two rational interpretations of policy language, insured is entitled to benefit of the one that is more favorable to it
• finding that although EPA PRP letter sought to “discuss [insured’s] voluntary involvement” it constituted a “suit” and adding that “[i]t would be naive to characterize the EPA letter as a request for voluntary action”
• finding that “damages” in an insurance policy covered costs of environmental cleanup

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).