Laserfiche WebLink
1 inadvertently result in significant damages, including penetration and contamination of the large <br /> 2 and very productive"C"aquifer underlying the Site and its environs. Such exposure and risk is <br /> 3 most appropriately mitigated by maintaining adequate Environmental Impairment Liability ("EIL") <br /> 4 insurance coverage. Requiring the Site Project Manager to self insure unnecessarily limits the <br /> 5 availability of those willing to undertake the tasks required and greatly increases the rates at which <br /> 6 they would agree to perform all of the required tasks. The limits of liability coverage required of <br /> 7 the Site Project Manager are appropriate as proposed in the Consent Decree. <br /> 8 Comment#15: <br /> 9 Section Addressed: Section VII, Site Technical Coordinators <br /> 10 Page 10, Lines 5-16 <br /> 11 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 12 The Commenters, the Equipment Manufacturers, assert that premiums associated <br /> 13 with acquiring the minimum limits of liability to be maintained by the Site Project Manager <br /> 14 should not be included as Site Project Manager's Costs and should not be recoverable in <br /> 15 subsequent litigation against the Equipment Manufacturers in that the Equipment Manufacturers <br /> 16 are not named as additional insureds under these policies. <br /> 17 Settling Parties' Response; <br /> 18 The Settling Parties respond that the issue of whether insurance premiums related <br /> 19 to the Work should be included in the Site Project Manager's costs or whether they will be <br /> 20 recoverable in subsequent litigation against the Equipment Manufacturers is not properly the <br /> 21 subject for a public comment on, nor inclusion in, the Consent Decree in that the Commenters are <br /> 22 seeking relief from the Court rather than providing observations about the substance of the <br /> 23 Consent Decree. As a party to this action, the Commenters should more properly raise this issue <br /> 24 with the Court at the time the Settling Parties move for entry of the Consent Decree or as an <br /> 25 affirmative defense to their obligation to pay for some or all of these costs should such a claim be <br /> 26 asserted. <br /> 27 The Settling Parties further respond that, with respect to the Commenters' <br /> 28 objection to not being named as an additional insured,the Equipment Manufacturers are neither an <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -22- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 Q 10:43 AM <br />