Opinion ID: 1251964
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Application of an Injury-in-Fact Approach

Text: In Gelman, coverage under its alleged policies is triggered when the alleged property damage, here groundwater contamination from Gelman's disposal of 1,4-dioxane, first occurred. [13] Coverage would also exist under any subsequent policy periods during which contamination continued to occur. Because proceedings in the trial court had not been concluded before the trigger issue was appealed, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Particularly, the trial court must determine whether the policies in fact existed and when the contamination occurred. In Arco, the trial court found that there had been coverage triggering occurrences in each of defendant's policy periods. Specifically, the court found as follows: It was clear that there were accidents occurring throughout the period of the policies at issue. There were accidentalspills, according to the testimony, which resulted in discharges into the drains in the plant, as well as unintentional overflows into the drains in the plant. The evidence supports finding that the VOCs which were released, entered the soil in all three areas described on the exhibits, that they entered the aquifer and contributed to the plume. These findings were based on testimony from plaintiff's employees regarding numerous and repeated accidental spills and overflows of materials containing VOCs. Additionally, Arco established, by expert testimony, that not only were there releases of contaminants in each policy period, but also that there was actual property damage resulting from these releases in each of the policy periods as well. Joel Hunt, an expert on hydrogeology and contaminant transport, testified that the releases to the soil would have reached the groundwater beneath the site in eight weeks or less and would have contributed to the soil and groundwater contamination. The trial court found Mr. Hunt's testimony to be credible. [14] We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the evidence supported finding that the VOCs were released and contributed to the contamination in each of the policy periods.