Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Borough of Bellmawr
New Jersey Supreme Court
172 N.J. 409, 799 A.2d 499 (2002)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The Borough of Bellmawr (the borough) (defendant) deposited municipal waste in the Helen Kramer Landfill (the landfill) in Bellmawr, New Jersey, from approximately 1978 to 1981. The borough did not separate harmful pollutants from municipal trash. In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a remedial investigation study that revealed the presence of hazardous chemicals in the soil and waters at the landfill. The borough settled with the EPA for a contribution of $449,036.39 for response and remedial costs. The borough had maintained comprehensive general liability insurance (CGL) policies with Century Indemnity Company (Century) and Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Quincy) (plaintiff). The Century policy was in effect from June 18, 1977, until June 18, 1978. The Quincy policies were in effect from June 18, 1978, until June 18, 1981. The borough filed a declaratory-judgment action against Quincy and Century. Quincy was ordered to indemnify the borough. Quincy filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the liabilities of Quincy and Century. During the trial, Dr. Ralph Lee Steiner testified about leachate, which is the liquid that passes through contaminated materials and contaminates groundwater. Dr. Steiner testified that leachate could have been discharged from the Landfill only when the waste was saturated at field capacity, which he calculated was approximately 185 to 200 days after the borough began dumping in the Landfill. Dr. Steiner concluded that groundwater contamination was not generated before June 18, 1978. The trial court determined that coverage under a CGL policy was triggered not when waste was deposited, but when leachate escaped and contaminated groundwater. The court held that the Quincy policy was the only one in effect at such a time. The appellate division affirmed, and Century was absolved from liability. Quincy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stein, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (LaVecchia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.