ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY 781 A.2d 1172 (2001) CASE BRIEF

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

781 A.2d 1172 (2001)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Rohm (P) appealed a reversal of the trial court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of P.

FACTS: P purchased Whitmoyer Laboratories, a small veterinary pharmaceuticals company, and continued operations. Shortly thereafter, P discovered that the site was extensively polluted with arsenic waste, a byproduct of Whitmoyer's and Ps' manufacturing processes. P undertook remedial measures to clean up the site but arsenic waste continued to be produced as a result of operations. P eventually sold the site to Smith-Kline Beecham. In December 1964, P added the Whitmoyer site to existing CGL insurance coverage it held with Continental (D). P periodically purchased from D additional policies that covered Whitmoyer throughout the time that they operated the site and were aware of the contamination. Ps disclosed the problem to their primary coverage insurer and to their insurance broker as well as to the proper commonwealth authorities. There is no evidence that D was ever notified of the pollution problem. In 1980, Congress enacted CERCLA which retroactively imposes strict liability for environmental cleanup costs on present and former owners or operators of polluting facilities without regard to fault. P was strictly liable for the cleanup costs associated with the Whitmoyer site. In 1988, twenty-four years after becoming aware of the severe pollution at Whitmoyer, P notified D that they were asserting a claim to cover the Whitmoyer cleanup costs, more than twenty-one million dollars. D denied the claim and P brought suit. The trial court directed a verdict in P's favor on the issue of D's late notice defense and submitted a verdict form containing seven questions for the jury's consideration. The jury, in response to the special verdict interrogatories, determined that no coverage existed as it found in favor of P. After post-trial motions were filed, the court entered JNOV on the jury's verdict. The Superior Court reversed and P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner