SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

s Karen Kaika August 7, 1996 Page 7 are caused by improper installation. 52 Fed. Reg. 12, 666 (1987). Defects in installation include inadequate pit and trench design, improper tank bedding and placement, inadequate anchoring in high groundwater table conditions, and improper installation of attachments, such as the fittings on piping. Piping failures also cause releases from UST systems. EPA's "State Release Incident Survey" found that over 50% of reported structural failure incidents occurred in piping. Ld,. Spills and overfills represent another cause of releases. Spills occur when the substance is transferred between the storage tank and the discharge hose. Id. Overfills occur during delivery of the product to the UST. EPA acknowledges that only a small amount of the product is released with each spill or overfill. However, small repeated spills can contaminate surrounding soil. Spills and overfills are generally caused by human error. Italiano; Liability for Underground Storage Tanks (1987). In sum, any of these may have resulted in the release at TFS, and may be covered as sudden and accidental. However, as noted herein, even if a combination of covered and noncovered causes exist, the doctrine of concurrent causation would operate to require coverage. Lastly, the fact that property damage has occurred over an extended period of time does not negate the possibility that the cause of that contamination was a, sudden or abrupt event, or a series of abrupt events. The Shell court held that "`sudden' refers to the pollution's commencement and does not require that the polluting event terminate quickly or have only a brief duration." 12 Cal.AppAth at p. 756. The She 1 court further stated: "[I]f a sudden and accidental discharge continues for a long time, at some point it ceases to be sudden or accidental. [Citation.] Still, a sudden and accidental discharge of a dangerous pollutant could continue unabated for some time because of a negligent failure to discover it, technical problems or a lack of resources to delay curtailment, or some other circumstance. Liability from such an event could well be covered." 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 756 (citations omitted). Duty to Defend Administrative Enforcement Actions The policy provides that Royal has the duty to defend any suit against TFS. The administrative enforcement actions taken here by the PHS/EHD and the SWRCB constitute a "suit" thereby triggering Royal's duty to defend against the cleanup claims asserted by the relevant governmental agencies. Royal need not and must not wait until a lawsuit is fled to defend TFS against the various claims. CT iQ-J 07 WT' nCCH V I1/1QQH IAWTI7TM C7.OT Or . )n �nH