My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WILSON
>
101
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0541653
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2020 3:44:55 PM
Creation date
7/8/2020 3:37:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0541653
PE
2965
FACILITY_ID
FA0023871
FACILITY_NAME
TOP FILLING STATION
STREET_NUMBER
101
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
WILSON
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15125307
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
101 S WILSON WAY
P_LOCATION
01
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
196
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Karen Kaika <br /> August 7, 1996 <br /> Page 9 <br /> administrative remedies or go directly to litigation." Id. The California Supreme <br /> Court expressed a similar public policy rationale when it concluded in AIU Insurance <br /> ComRany v. FMC Corporation (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, that coverage should not depend <br /> on the remedies sought by the government to clean up contaminated property under <br /> CERCLA and similar state statutes; i.e., an injunction mandating the responsible party <br /> to clean up the site versus a suit by the government to recover sums expended by the <br /> government to clean up the property. <br /> All of the district court opinions in California have also held that under <br /> California law, administrative proceedings constitute a "suit" triggering an insurer's <br /> duty to defend. See, County of Santa Clara v. U.S. Fidelity and Guarantee Company <br /> (N.D. California 1994) 859 F.Supp. 396, 397; County of Santa Clara Y. U.S. Fidelity <br /> and Guarantee Company (N.D. California 1993) 993 U.S. Dist.; Lexis, 19019 (holding <br /> that the insurance of a remedial action order by the Cal EPA constituted a "suit" <br /> triggering the insurer's duty to defend; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Allstate Insurance <br /> Company CV-93-6290 (C.D. Cal. October 27, 1994) (holding that administrative <br /> enforcement actions constitute a "suit"); Southwest Coaches, Inc. v. American NAT <br /> Fire Ins. Compmy No. 94-1563 J (S.D. Cal. March 27, 1995) (holding that insured's <br /> receipt of a corrective action order from the County of San Diego Department of <br /> Environmental Health Services constituted a "suit" triggering the insurer's duty to <br /> defend). <br /> Based on the foregoing, it is clear that TFS's receipt of corrective action orders <br /> from the PHS/EHD and the SWRCB constitute a suit thereby triggering Royal's and <br /> Continental's duty to defend. <br /> Duty to Pay for Investigation and Technical Proposals <br /> As part of its duty to defend, Royal must also pay for costs and fees associated <br /> with investigation of the contamination of the site and for preparation of remediation <br /> proposals in response to the directives of the agencies. <br /> The principal that an insurer must pay, as part of its defense obligation the cost <br /> of investigating the underlying claim, has long been established in traditional insurance <br /> coverage settings. <br /> CT iMTCJIWTInCCH .O 11l1QQH I.IHTInTM C�•OT QA, )n qnH <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.