Opinion ID: 1506273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clean-up Costs.

Text: Exclusion (f) in the Facility Form excludes coverage for property damage to any property at the location designated in Item 3, i.e., Maxey Flats. Exclusion (f) in the S & T Form excludes coverage for property damage to any nuclear facility and for any property threat. The any nuclear facility language obviously anticipates that some insured waste haulers will haul waste to more than one nuclear facility. The language includes the Maxey Flats facility and, in that respect, is identical to Exclusion (f) in the Facility Form. Both of these exclusions are akin to the owned property exclusion found in virtually all comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies and apply to the clean-up costs required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA. The majority opinion concedes that these exclusions preclude recovery of the clean-up costs. Ante, at 840. Accord Yale Univ. v. Cigna Ins. Co., 224 F.Supp.2d 402, 407 (D.Conn.2002) ([E]ven assuming arguendo that the clean-up costs incurred by Yale were sums it was `legally obligated to pay' `as damages' pursuant to the directives, the plain language of the policies [referring to the `owned property' exclusion] additionally require that such damages have been incurred because of third-party property damage. ); Cedar Lane Invs. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 883 P.2d 600, 603 (Colo.Ct.App.1994) (owned property exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for an EPA-ordered clean-up of the insured's property); Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1998) (Boardman cannot obtain coverage for the costs of remediation to its own property on grounds that the clean-up was state-ordered or because of a possible future threat to surrounding property.); Hakim v. Mass. Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 424 Mass. 275, 675 N.E.2d 1161, 1166 (1997) (Costs incurred for the sole purpose of remediating the Hakims' property are barred by the owned property exclusion of the policy.); Martin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 146 Or.App. 270, 932 P.2d 1207, 1212-13 (1997) (Whether the reason for cleaning up the pollution was to restore the property to its full value for the benefit of its owners or to comply with governmental regulations for the benefit of the public, the remediation occurred on Martin's `own property' and, thus, the cost thereof was unambiguously exclude[d].).