Posts tagged "Steadfast"

Casella Waste Systems, Inc., et al. v. Steadfast Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-008-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 2016-2521 BLS 1 CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. et al1 vs. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an insurance coverage dispute between a company engaged in the landfill business and its insurer. The insurer, defendant Steadfast Insurance Company, issued a policy called Z Choice Pollution Liability (the “Policy”) to plaintiff, Casella Waste Systems, Inc., naming Casella and its subsidiary, Southbridge Recycling & Disposal Park, Inc. (“SRDP”), as insureds. The Policy covers claims made against the insureds during the Policy period of April 30, 2015 to June 15, 2016. Following notification by Casella in October 2015 to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) of the detection of pollution flowing from Casella’s property to neighboring property, a claim by DEP, as defined in the Policy, arose. Casella sought insurance coverage for the claim. Steadfast denied coverage. Casella sued for breach of contract, violation of G.L. c. 93A and for a declaration of coverage. Steadfast now moves for a summary judgment declaring there is no coverage under the Policy. For the reasons described below, summary judgment must be denied because there are material issues of fact that 1 Southbridge Recycling & Disposal Park, Inc. 1 are genuinely in dispute. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the parties’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Responses Thereto (“SUMF”), supplemented by documents and affidavits in the summary judgment record. The coverage at issue under the Policy is what was provided under Coverage C: Cleanup Costs – New Pollution Event. Under Coverage C, Steadfast is obligated to pay “cleanup costs” to the extent resulting from a “new pollution event” that migrates beyond the boundaries of a “covered location” if that “new pollution event” is first “discovered” during the policy period. The obligation to pay includes “cleanup costs” that the insured is legally obligated to pay resulting from a third-party “claim.” The Policy also contains an exclusion from coverage for a “known pollution event.” The words in quotes are defined terms in the Policy. Casella seeks to be reimbursed and indemnified by Steadfast for all past and future cleanup costs incurred on account of a claim by DEP. There is no dispute that (i) Casella incurred cleanup costs, as defined, (ii) arising from migration of pollution from a covered property, as defined, and (iii) Casella received and reported to Steadfast a claim, as defined, coming from DEP. The dispute between the parties that is the crux of this lawsuit is whether the DEP claim resulted from a “new pollution event” that first commenced in the Policy period and was not known by Casella prior to the commencement […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 4, 2017 at 1:11 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Silva v. Steadfast Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-097-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   14-P-987                                        Appeals Court   GARY P. SILVA  vs.  STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 14-P-987. Hampden.     March 5, 2015. – August 7, 2015.   Present:  Cypher, Kafker, & Green, JJ. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment.  Insurance, Unfair act or practice, Settlement of claim.  Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Offer of settlement, Unfair act or practice, Consumer, Businessman’s claim.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 14, 2012.   The case was heard by Constance M. Sweeney, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Mark J. Albano for the plaintiff. Timothy O. Egan for the defendant.     KAFKER, J.  Gary P. Silva appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast).  In his complaint, Silva claimed that Steadfast violated G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9), and G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 11, by failing to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of earlier litigation arising out of damage to Silva’s business caused by a botched demolition project by Associated Building Wreckers, Inc. (Associated), a company insured by Steadfast.  Silva maintains that Steadfast should have made a settlement offer after judgment entered in the earlier litigation even though (1) Silva was appealing multiple aspects of that judgment and seeking to expand the scope of both liability and damages, and (2) postjudgment motions by both Silva and Steadfast to recalculate the amount of damages were ultimately allowed.  We affirm. Background.  The city of Holyoke hired Associated to demolish an abandoned building that was adjacent to Silva’s property, on which Silva operated his auto body and repair business, S&L Automotive.  During demolition, which took place on January 19, 2006, the building collapsed onto Silva’s property and severely damaged his business.  Steadfast was Associated’s liability insurer at the time.  On December 29, 2006, Silva brought suit in Superior Court against Associated seeking, among other things, damages for his business and property and for personal injuries.[1]  At the close of Silva’s evidence in that trial, the judge directed a verdict for Associated on Silva’s nuisance, strict liability, and G. L. c. 93A claims.  At the conclusion of the trial on June 21, 2010, the judge awarded Silva $ 366,607.36 on his first breach of contract claim,[2] including damages for building repair, removal, and demolition costs, along with $ 10,000 for personal property damage.  The judge ruled in favor of Associated on Silva’s claims for […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 7, 2015 at 9:29 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,