NSP v. Fidelity and Cas. Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.

    515 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    In SCSC Corp., an insured that had been ordered to clean up soil and groundwater contamination sought coverage from its insurers.

    The owned property exclusion clearly does not exclude costs incurred to remedy the groundwater contamination by cleaning the insured's property. Northern States Power Co. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 504 N.W.2d 240, 246 (Minn.App. 1993), pet. for rev. granted to consider different issue (Minn. Nov. 16, 1993) ( NSP).

  2. Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis.

    846 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (D. Minn. 2012)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Minnesota adheres to the majority view that a potentially responsible party letter is a "suit" as that term is used in Comprehensive General Liability policies

    In this case, whether coverage is available to Land O' Lakes notwithstanding the owned-property exclusion depends on what Domtar meant by the phrase “there is actual injury ... to third-party property.” See N. States Power Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. (“ NSP I ”), 504 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn.Ct.App.1993) (“Expenditures to prevent future pollution of a type which has yet to occur or from a source which has yet to cause pollution ... are not covered because these costs are not causally related to the property damage.”), aff'd as modified,523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn.1994).

  3. NSP v. Fidelity Cas. Co. of New York

    523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1994)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that insured must satisfy the full self-insured retention for each applicable policy period

    The court of appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case, holding that the "total policy insuring intent" should have been analyzed to determine whether St. Paul's policies provided primary coverage and, under that analysis, St. Paul's policies provided primary coverage. Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity and Cas. Co., 504 N.W.2d 240, 244-45 (Minn.App. 1993). The court of appeals also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether all of the MPCA mandated expenditures were required to remedy existing contamination and whether the "owned property" exclusion precluded coverage for certain damages.

  4. Fairview Hosp. v. St. Paul Fire Marine

    518 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    Determining trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider expert's affidavit when expert was not disclosed to opposing party until after deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses had passed

    The triggering event for coverage is the actual damage, such as contamination of groundwater or soil during a policy period. Northern States Power v. Fidelity Casualty, 504 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn.App.), pet. for rev. granted in part, denied in part (Minn. Nov. 16, 1993); Industrial Steel, 399 N.W.2d at 159; see also Centennial Ins. v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty, 677 F. Supp. 342, 346 (E.D.Pa. 1987) (applying actual injury rule and holding that each time wastes were released, there was an injurious effect triggering coverage); Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 662 F. Supp. 71, 76 (E.D.Mich. 1987) (each exposure of the environment to a pollutant constitutes an occurrence and triggers coverage). St. Paul argues that Fairview cannot show damage during the policy periods that would trigger coverage.

  5. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. S. Natural Gas Co.

    142 So. 3d 436 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that contracts "must be construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and that, if the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, there is no need for judicial construction"

    178 Mich.App. at 719–20, 444 N.W.2d at 819 (internal citations omitted). In Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 504 N.W.2d 240 (Minn.Ct.App.1993), aff'd, 523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn.1994), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota rejected an insurer's argument that certain environmental cleanup costs were excluded from coverage by an owned-property exclusion. The insurer argued that it did not have to pay for removal of contaminated soil from its insured's property because no money had been spent to remedy the contamination of the groundwater but only to excavate and remove contaminated soil.

  6. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. S. Natural Gas Co.

    1110698 (Ala. Jun. 28, 2013)

    178 Mich. App. at 719-20, 444 N.W.2d at 819 (internal citations omitted). In Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 504 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd, 523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1994), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota rejected an insurer's argument that certain environmental cleanup costs were excluded from coverage by an owned-property exclusion.

  7. Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.

    552 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 7 times
    Holding loss is fortuitous if insured does not know loss has occurred, even if insured knows of risk of future loss

    Expenses that must be incurred to remedy contamination to an insured's own property but are not also necessary to repair groundwater and associated soil contamination are precluded from coverage by the owned property exclusion. Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity Cas. Co., 504 N.W.2d 240, 246 (Minn.App. 1993) (hereinafter NSP2); SCSC, 515 N.W.2d at 599. The insurers argue that the jury should have been allowed to determine how much of the site was actually contributing to groundwater contamination.

  8. Land O' Lakes, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau

    728 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    The CGL policies also provide that the Insurers will not pay for damages to Land O' Lakes's own property—the so-called owned-property exclusion. Under Minnesota law, the owned-property exclusion precludes coverage for costs incurred by an insured to remediate contamination that is “confined to the insured's property and unrelated to preventing off-site contamination.” Domtar Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 724, 734 (Minn.1997). If contamination on an insured's own property has already damaged third-party property, however, government-mandated “[c]osts and expenses for the cleanup of” the contamination on both the insured's own property and third-party property may be covered. N. States Power Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 504 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn.Ct.App.1993), aff'd as modified,523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn.1994). But costs and expenses to clean up the insured's own property in order “to prevent future pollution of a type which has yet to occur or from a source which has yet to cause pollution ... are not covered because these costs are not causally related to the [third-party] property damage.”

  9. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

    73 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    Our conclusion is supported by the fact that the limited and inexpensive repairs to the pipe's supporting system could easily be characterized as measures to prevent unknown future damage only, and thus would be outside the definition of "property damage." See Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York, 504 N.W.2d 240, 245-46 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) ("Expenditures to prevent future [damage] of a type which has yet to occur or from a source which has yet to cause [damage], however, are not covered because these costs are not causally related to the property damage."), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn.

  10. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

    Case No. 1:12-CV-84-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Relying on Mathis to hold the insured’s "defective work" was not an "occurrence" where the resulting damages were a "foreseeable consequence" of the work

    In support, plaintiff cites a Minnesota case that held "[e]xpenditures to prevent future pollution of a type which has yet to occur or from a source which has yet to cause pollution, however, are not covered because these costs are not causally related to the property damage." N. States Power Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 504 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd as modified, 523 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1994).