Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
311 F.3d 226 (2002)


Facts

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Port Authority of Trans-Hudson Corporation (plaintiffs) own facilities throughout New York and New Jersey. These facilities contained asbestos. The plaintiffs sought to recover for the expenses they incurred when they removed asbestos from their facilities, because, they claimed, the asbestos damaged the facilities. At no point did asbestos levels in the plaintiffs’ properties exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards. Although over 1,000 structures owned by the plaintiffs contained asbestos, the plaintiffs only asserted claims for 69 abatement projects, which were only carried out in 13 instances. The plaintiffs had first-party insurance policies with Affiliated FM Insurance Company and other property insurers (defendants) insuring against all risks of physical loss or damage occurring during the periods covered by the policies, which were from 1971 to 1991. The plaintiffs claimed that the existence of asbestos in their facilities triggered loss under those policies. The plaintiffs brought a state-court action against the defendants to recover the cost of asbestos abatement. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The district court determined that physical loss or damage could only be found if there was an imminent threat of asbestos release or an actual release of asbestos resulting in contamination to the property. Presence of asbestos was not enough. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that, although the plaintiffs claimed losses arising from asbestos, there was no indication that there was an increased asbestos level. The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Weis, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.