United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the release of the hazardous substances constituted an “ ‘imminent and substantial endangerment to the public or welfare of the environment’ ”
• applying Missouri law to hold that the right to beneficial use of groundwater is not a property interest within the owned-property exclusion
• “environmental harm associated with the ... site constitutes ‘property damage’ as such term is used and defined in the CGL [comprehensive general liability] insurance policies”
• expenses for damages contained on insured’s property unrelated to off-site contamination or prevention thereof precluded by exclusion
• where groundwater contamination exists, abatement costs to prevent damage or further damage to third parties not excluded
• coverage precluded by “owned or leased property” exclusion even though insured no longer owned or leased the property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).