Toxic Tort Litigation Blog : Toxic Tort Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Product Liability, Contamination, Pollution

Guest Bloggers David L. Guevara, Ph.D., and Bradley R. Sugarman are attorneys in the environmental practice group in the law firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Messrs. Guevara and Sugarman provide services in the areas of trial practice, Superfund defense and negotiation, enforcement defense, cost-recovery for plaintiffs and defendants, criminal environmental defense, environmental insurance and toxic tort litigation.  Mr. Guevara is the co-editor of a forthcoming book from ABA Book Publishing titled “Environmental Liability and Insurance Recovery.”   

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals provided insurance companies doing business in Indiana with guidance on how to draft pollution exclusion clauses—provisions typically included in commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies that seek to exclude coverage for claims based on environmental contamination. Indiana is known for the tough standards it imposes on insurance companies with respect to withholding coverage based on policy exclusions. Since the Indiana Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in American States Insurance Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996), Indiana courts will not exclude coverage based on pollution exclusion clauses unless the language of the insurance policy explicitly excludes the “pollutant” at issue. If the policy language is vague as to whether the pollutant is included, then the pollution exclusion clause does not apply. In West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, et al., 598 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that clear and unambiguous language in pollution exclusion clauses is necessary in order to bar coverage for environmental contamination claims. 

The issue in West Bend was whether CGL policies issued by Federated Mutual Insurance Company (“Federated”) covered liabilities for petroleum released from underground storage tanks and associated piping from a 7-Eleven gas station in Goshen, Indiana. The petroleum contaminated the groundwater and migrated underneath a nearby residential neighborhood.  The contamination vaporized into homes causing property damage and personal injury. The neighborhood residents sued 7-Eleven and West Bend Mutual Insurance Company’s (“West Bend”) and Federated’s mutual insured, MDK, who formerly owned and operated the station. After lengthy litigation, MDK eventually settled for $4 million.  West Bend sued Federated to recover its costs of defending MDK. 

Federated argued that it owed no duty to defend because it had no duty to indemnify claims arising from petroleum contamination pursuant to the pollution exclusion clause in its policy. West Bend countered by arguing that the Federated pollution exclusion clause was similar to the exclusion rejected by the Kiger court. 

The Seventh Circuit found that the Federated pollution exclusion clause explicitly excluded “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by the release of “pollutants” or “motor fuels” from “tanks” and “underground piping.” While the term “pollutants” did not include gasoline or petroleum, the term “motor fuels” did. Moreover, the court noted that the Federated policy included an “Indiana Changes Endorsement” which emphasized that the pollution exclusion applied even to “pollutants” that had an ongoing function in the business. Thus, the court was convinced that “a gas station owner . . . would know to a certainty that Federated would not be responsible for damage arising out of gasoline leaks taking place during the covered period” after reading these two policy provisions.

While the West Bend decision is one of the only opinions to uphold the denial of coverage for environmental contamination in Indiana, it underscores that insurers who wish to deny coverage on the basis of the pollution exclusion face an uphill battle in this jurisdiction. The Federated policy explicitly excluded the type of pollutant (i.e., petroleum) and the manner in which it was released (i.e., from USTs and associated piping). Few CGL policies issued in Indiana are drafted with this degree of specificity. Indeed, pollution exclusion endorsements added to Indiana CGL policies even after Kiger still contain pollution exclusion clauses that may be deemed vague and overly broad. The insurance industry can address the problem posed by Indiana courts by drafting what those courts consider clear and unambiguous contractual pollution exclusions with a precise definition of “pollutants”. 

If Theodore J. Lowi, the John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, teaching in the Government Department at Cornell University, one day decides to again update his classic study of American Government, End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, he could find further validation for his book's thesis in the compelling article by Ryan Lizza, "As The World Burns: How the Senate and the White House missed their best chance to deal with Climate Change", which appeared in New Yorker Magazine (October 11, 2010).  Mr. Lizza describes  how an unlikely coalition comprised of Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman (which came to be known as the "K.G.L") came tantalizingly close to putting together a bipartisan climate change bill, but failed in the end for several reasons. 

In End of Liberalism, Lowi examines how the American Republic has grown to gargantuan size without the necessary self-examination or  recognition that this growth has been fueled by delegation of power to interest groups. According to Lowi, Congress's delegation of its responsibility to govern to administrative agencies has led in turn to an unwholesome process of accommodation in which regulatory agencies become virtual captives of interest groups.  Lowi called this tendency "clientelism".  New governmnental policies have only served to tighten the vice-like grip of interest groups over the machinery of government. 

In preparing his article, Mr. Llzza asked former Vice President Al Gore why he thought the K.G.L. climate change legislation  failed.  The first reason given was Republican partisanship; the second reason was the Great Recession.  However, Mr. Gore's  third explanation for the legislation's failure pinpointed how Kerry, Graham and Lieberman approached the issue and is emblematic of our Congress' failure to take up necessary legislation in many areas, not merely in the environmental arena.  Mr. Gore stated:

 "The influence of special interests is now at an extremely unhealthy level.  And it's to the point where it's virtually impossible for participants in the current political system to enact any significant change without first seeking and gaining permission from the largest commercial interests who are most affected by the proposed change."

Professor Lowi, are you listening?

On October 6, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission proposed revised “Green Guides”, the guidance provided to corporate marketers to help them avoid making misleading environmental claims. The Green Guides were first issued in 1992 and revised in 1996 and 1998. The proposed Guides issued last week are designed to significantly strengthen the FTC’s prior guidance and provide new guidance on marketing claims that were not commonly asserted in the 1990’s before the “Green Revolution”. Although the FTC is seeking public comments on the proposed revisions through December 10, 2010, the guidance issued last week is not likely to be significantly modified.

Based upon a review of the new Green Guides, there are some basic rules of the road that, if followed, will help companies avoid “Greenwashing” claims and the consumer class action suits which are likely to become increasingly common: (1) Avoid unqualified general environmental marketing claims that are difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate; (2) General claims of environmental benefit should be accompanied by qualifiers that are clear, specific and accurate; (3) When using a certification or a seal of approval to promote the green nature of a product, use clear and prominent language to clarify that the certification or seal relates to a particular environmental attribute, which the company can substantiate; (4) If the company is endorsing a product with its own seal of approval, use clear prominent and qualifying language to alert consumers that the company created the certifying program, not an independent third-party; and (5) If only a portion of the product is made with recycled or renewable material, clearly and prominently clarify which portion of the product is made from a recycled or renewable source.

Perhaps surprisingly, FTC’s consumer revealed research found that the public overestimates the significance of “Green” claims, which suggests that “greenwashing” is common and probably profitable. Despite consumers’ increasing cynicism, there must be some deep-seated need to believe that you are a buying an “eco-friendly” product. Going forward, companie seeking to comply with the new guidelines may want to rethink their marketing strategies and avoid making general claims of “environmental friendliness” and focus instead on advertising claims that can be are based on scientific research. 

The FTC’s Green Guides are largely devoid of regulatory jargon often found regulations and are easy to read and understand. The Green Guides provide helpful examples of which kind of claims are acceptable and which are not. Following the adoption of the Green Guides, should we expect that FTC will initiate a spate of enforcement actions to emphasize to industry that the new Green Guides should be taken seriously?  You bet!.

Ed Lowenberg, the Coordinator of the Toxic Torts Group in the Litigation Department at ExxonMobil, is retiring after 32 with the company on November 30, 2010.  He will be greatly missed by members of the toxic tort bar--by both the defendant and plaintiff lawyers with whom he has worked over his long career  To many of us, Ed Lowenberg personified Exxon.  Over the years, he was responsible for some of the most high profile toxic tort litigations in the United States.  Like the consummate fighter that he was, Ed always looked to land a decisive  knockout blow on an adversary. At the same time, however , Ed handled all of his matters with professional integrity, creativity and good humor.  He will be greatly missed by the toxic tort bar. 

After receiving a B.A. in Political Science from the City College of New York in 1967 and a J.D. from the University of Texas in 1970, Ed worked at HEW, as a Trial Counsel for Justice, and as Special Counsel for the SEC. He also served as Special Assistant United States Attorney in Houston, New Orleans and in other venues. However, he found his true calling working in-house at Exxon, which he joined in 1978, defending the the company's toxic tort litigation.

Ed was an early advocate of joint defense groups in mass tort litigation.  In cases in which plaintiffs would sue 20 chemical manufacturers, each manufacturer would routinely retain its own legal team to defend the case.  In a joint defense, the defendants agree to waive conflicts and to retain a single law firm to represent the entire defense group.  When joint defense groups were initially proposed, there was a tremendous backlash within both the in-house bar and among outside law firms, who feared the  loss of significant clients to the "joint defense counsel"  and bemoaned the the loss of revenue from defending the case.  However, Ed and other pioneering in-house lawyers recognized that the industry could more properly defend baseless toxic tort cases once a joint defense group comprised of in-house lawyers could was able to instruct defense counsel how best to defend a case.  With multiple law firms appearing for multiple defendants, the temptation for some companies to settle for "nuisance value" to avoid high defense costs was often irresistible.  In a joint defense, in which each of the twenty law firms pays only a fraction of the cost of defense, nuisance value is greatly diminished and plaintiff lawyers often lose their enthusiasm about their claims.  The joint defense was just one of many innovations Ed brought to toxic tort defense.