Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Insurance, liability and compensation funds · United States · 1980–2017

Love Canal: appeals court upholds insurer's pollution exclusion in plumber case

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed · 2 unclear See the gaps

In 2017 the Second Circuit held that a pollution exclusion barred a plumber's insurance cover for work that disturbed Love Canal sediment. Earlier insurer suits and payments linked to Occidental and Hooker are also covered.

What?
Insurers filed coverage suits over Love Canal, and in 2017 the Second Circuit upheld a pollution exclusion in a plumber's policy. RT Specialty
Where?
Love Canal, Niagara County, New York, United States RT Specialty
When?
1980 insurer suits; 1994 negligence finding and payment; 2017 appeals ruling RT Specialty
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Insurers' declaratory-judgment suits; a pollution exclusion applied on appeal in 2017; a negligence finding without punitive damages in 1994; a payment to New York State.
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who

What happened

The record, in order.

In 1980 insurers including Lloyd's, Argonaut and excess carriers filed declaratory-judgment actions against Occidental Petroleum over Love Canal; a New York court ruled on forum and stay in July 1980, and the final outcome was not found.

In US v. Hooker (1994) the court found Hooker negligent but not reckless, so no punitive damages were awarded, UPI reported.

OxyChem paid New York State $98 million in 1994, according to UPI; other sources give $120 million.

In 2017 the Second Circuit held that the pollution exclusion barred defense and indemnity for a plumber whose work disturbed Love Canal sediment; the insurer won.

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 1980-07-28Outcome not on record
      Argonaut Insurance v. Occidental Petroleum, 106 Misc. 2d 5
      New York Supreme Court, Niagara County · Civil · Argonaut Insurance and other Love Canal insurers → Occidental Petroleum

      Insurers filed declaratory-judgment actions over Love Canal. The July 1980 ruling concerned forum and stay. The final outcome was not found.

    2. 1994-03-17Outcome not on record
      United States v. Hooker, 850 F. Supp. 993
      US District Court, Western District of New York · Civil · United States → Hooker

      The court found Hooker negligent but not reckless, so no punitive damages were awarded. The finding is reported by UPI.

    3. 2017-05-31Claimant won
      Cincinnati Ins. v. Roy's Plumbing
      US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · Civil · Cincinnati Insurance → Roy's Plumbing

      The Second Circuit held that the pollution exclusion barred defense and indemnity for a plumber's work that disturbed Love Canal sediment. The insurer won. RT Specialty

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Court

    • Unclear Argonaut Insurance v. Occidental Petroleum, 106 Misc. 2d 5: outcome not on record.
    • Unclear United States v. Hooker, 850 F. Supp. 993: outcome not on record.

    Record

    • None on record The final outcome of the 1980 insurer actions was not found.
    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: a 1995 payment of $129 million by OxyChem to the US federal government (US Department of Justice release).
    • Disputed Sources differ on the New York State payment: $98 million or $120 million.
    • None on record The Hooker finding is taken from a UPI report, not from the court text.
    • None on record Who gained or lost financially, and the effect on residents or the environment, is not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.

    Insurance

    Pollution exclusion
    A clause in a liability policy that excludes damage caused by pollution from cover.

    Law and courts

    Negligence and gross negligence
    Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care. Gross negligence is a serious, reckless failure; under US oil-spill law a finding of gross negligence raises the maximum penalty.
    Punitive damages
    Money a court orders a defendant to pay to punish especially reckless conduct, on top of compensation for losses. Mainly used in US courts.