King v. Sperry Gyroscope 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 court need not decide whether EPA demand letter constituted “suit” within meaning of policy
• Holding that the intentional dumping of pollutants is not “accidental” within the meaning of the pollution exclusion
• holding property damage caused by intentional discharges of toxic wastes into waterway ineligible for coverage under “sudden and accidental” exception to pollution-exclusion clause
• noting that \we need not rule on the [issue of] suddenness ... because it would be superfluous here\
• noting New York's policy of \assur[ing] that corporate polluters bear the full burden of their own actions spoiling the environment\ by giving pollution exclusion clauses broad effect
• noting New York’s policy of “assur[ing] that corporate polluters bear the full burden of their own actions spoiling the environment” by giving pollution exclusion clauses broad effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).