We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 49

The top three changes to watch in commercial real estate environmental due diligence in 2013

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2013

Environmental due diligence is changing in the commercial real estate market in 2013. Here is our list of the top three things to watch in this

Federal court tosses San Diego’s $250 million Qualcomm Stadium groundwater contamination lawsuit

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2013

Nothing serves as a death knell for lawsuits in federal court more often than exaggerated claims propped up by wobbly expert testimony. This rang

Successor liability claims for environmental contamination

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2013

Lawsuits for personal injuries, medical monitoring, and remediaton claims resulting from historic environmental contamination often involve successor

PRP letter triggers insurer's duty to defend

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2013

One of your most valuable rights under an insurance policy is having your insurance company defend you from a covered claim, no matter how frivolous. This

Contractor not responsible for sub’s RCRA liability

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 12 2012

A recent federal court decision found that an environmental contractor was not liable under RCRA simply because it hired a subcontractor that performed a wrongful act, even though the act resulted in the release of a hazardous substance into the environment

Post-closing diligence when buying or selling contaminated property

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2012

Post-closing diligence is critically important when buying or selling environmentally-contaminated property

RCRA vapor intrusion liability for "passive inaction"

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

An environmental contamination case set for trial based on liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") for “passive inaction and studied indifference” recently settled, but the court filings provide a valuable lesson to property owners to address contamination promptly and to document delays outside of their control (such as agency review and approval of work plans) rather than being second-guessed for delays

Will the indemnification clause in the asset purchase agreement protect me?

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 19 2012

Clients who buy or sell contaminated property always ask “will the indemnification clause in the asset purchase agreement protect me?”

Using insurance to pay for environmental cleanups: California approves all sums with stacking

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2012

In a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court approved the stacking of excess insurance policies in the continuous property loss scenario typical of environmental contamination and toxic tort litigation, thus issuing a sweeping insurance coverage opinion in favor of policy holders in California v. Continental Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3206561 (Aug. 9, 2012

Dry cleaner liable under CERCLA and headed to trial on RCRA claims

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2012

A federal district court recently entered summary judgment against a dry cleaner on a property owner’s CERCLA claim for past response costs and declaratory judgment claim regarding future response costs, and allowed the property owner’s RCRA claims to proceed to trial in Forest Park National Bank & Trust v. Ditchfield, 2012 WL 3028342, Case No. 10-C-3166 (N.D.Ill.July 24, 2012