[DOWNLOAD] "Broderick Investment Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co." by United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Broderick Investment Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- Release Date : January 15, 1992
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Order ON REHEARING Plaintiffs-Appellees' petition for rehearing is granted by the panel of Judges who decided this appeal
on the merits. On rehearing, we consider only the issue of whether Broderick Investment Company (BIC) is entitled to coverage
for two sources of pollution, the "main pond" and the "plant equipment." In its petition for rehearing, BIC contends that
"the proper course -- if the panel's opinion is not otherwise modified -- is to affirm the finding of coverage as to those
two sources and remand for a determination of this allocation". We disagree. With regard to the "main pond," we stated in footnote five of our opinion that BIC indirectly suggests that the phrase "into
or upon the land" does not describe their Disposition of waste because one of the three containment ponds might have been
lined with raw cement. As characterized by BIC, the evidence at trial indicated the following: that the pits were dug down
to a natural clay layer; that the first pond was lined with two inches of raw cement; that although no one could testify with
certainty that cement was placed in the bottom of the first pit, Forrest Dean testified that "he encountered a hard, impenetrable
material on the bottom that was as hard as cement"; and that two of the three ponds were not lined with cement. BIC admitted
that the pond was unlined as measured by today's EPA standards. In its supplemental brief, BIC asserted that "the main pond
was at best partially, and probably entirely, lined with raw cement."1 Even when we view the evidence in a light most favorable
to BIC and adopt BIC's characterizations as true, we nevertheless conclude that the Disposition of the waste was "into or
upon the land."