Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-02-0415.,3-02-0415. |
| Citation | 342 Ill. App.3d 940,277 Ill.Dec. 45,795 N.E.2d 412 |
| Parties | CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee/Cross Appellant (Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, including but not limited to the following syndicates: 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 46, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 75, 76, 79, 83, 84, 86, 88, 90, 108, 109, 110, 112, 122, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 138, 142, 144, 151, 160, 163, 164, 165, 169, 174, 175, 179, 188, 194, 198, 204, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 227, 231, 232, 235, 235A, 238, 241, 250, 253, 254, 272, 276, 278, 279, 286, 289, 297, 299, 300, 301, 306, 309, 311, 315, 316, 317, 322, 328, 330, 334, 342, 347, 357, 360, 365, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 399, 401, 404, 405, 416, 417, 420, 425, 427, 433, 440, 442, 453, 458, 462, 463, 465, 470, 472, 474, 475, 476, 479, 484, 490, 495, 496, 499, 507, 509, 510, 514, 515, 516, 517, 520, 523, 526, 527, 534, 535, 538, 539, 543, 544, 545, 552, 555, 556, 557, 558, 568, 576, 579, 581, 583, 535, 589, 590, 592, 604, 610, 612, 618, 619, 620, 621, 623, 625, 629, 632, 633, 634, 650, 651, 652, 656, 659, 660, 665, 670, 672, 677, 679, 684, 695, 707, 710, 711, 713, 719, 724, 726, 727, 729, 746, 748, 749, 750, 752, 755, 761, 762, 763, 765, 767, 768, 770, 771, 772, 773, 783, 788, 791, 793, 795, 796, 797, 819, 828, 830, 837, 838, 845, 846, 848, 849, 851, 852, 857, 860, 864, 867, 868, 870, 872, 878, 884, 887, 896, 898, 899, 900, 902, 905, 908, 909, 910, 916, 917, 918, 924, 947, 949, 960, 964, 969, 970, 971, 972, 975, 976, 987, 989, 990, 991, 998, 999, including Does 1-1000, Citizens of Illinois who are or have been members of the syndicates listed above; and Certain London Market Insurance Companies, including but not limited to: Accident & Casualty Insurance Company, Alba General Insurance Company, Anglo-French Insurance Company, Assicuranzioni Generali, City & General Insurance Company, Casualty Fire & Aviation Underwriters, Ltd., Compagnie Europeene D'Assoc. Industrielle, Dominion Insurance Company Ltd., Elvia Insurance Company, Excess Insurance Company Ltd., Generali, Gibbon, Helvetia Accident Swiss Insurance Company Ltd., Home and Overseas Insurance Company, Insurance Corp. of Ireland, London & Edinburg Insurance Company Ltd., Minster, National Casualty, National Casualty Detroit, National Casualty America, Prudential Insurance Company, River Thames Insurance Company Ltd., Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company Ltd., Sphere Drake Insurance Plc, St. Katherine Insurance Company Plc, St. Katherine Insurance Company Ltd., Stronghold, Swiss Union, Tower, Turegum Insurance Company, Willis Faber Swiss Insurance Company, Winterthus Ins. Co., World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation Ltd., Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company (UK) Ltd., Defendants-Appellees/Cross Appellants). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Stephen R. Kaufman, Charles J. Northrup, Sorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Springfield, Lester O. Brown, Thomas M. McMahon (argued), Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, Los Angeles, CA, Karen K. Poulos, Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, Chicago, Thomas H. Wilson (argued), Sorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., Springfield, for Central Illinois Light Company.
James S. Stickles, Jr. (argued), Laura J. McGrath, Kaplan & Von Ohlen, Chicago, for The Home Insurance Company.
David B. Collins, R. Michael Henderson, Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius, Chtd., Peoria, Neal M. Glazer, Jan Duffalo (argued), D'Amato & Lynch, New York City, for Certain London Market Insurance Companies.
The plaintiff, Central Illinois Light Company ("CILCO"), brought this action seeking indemnification under comprehensive liability policies issued between 1948 and 1985 by the defendants, the Home Insurance Company ("Home") and Certain London Market Insurers ("CLMI"), for environmental liabilities at three former manufactured gas plants ("MGPs"). The defendants filed nine motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment. The trial court granted five of those motions. The plaintiff is appealing the trial court's order granting three of those motions. The defendants have cross-appealed the trial court's denial of three summary judgment motions filed by them. We affirm in part and reverse in part the orders of the trial court.
The environmental liabilities at issue in this case arose at three former MGP sites in Illinois: MacArthur Boulevard in Springfield ("MacArthur"), First and Washington Streets in Springfield ("First and Washington") and Persimmon Street in Peoria ("Persimmon") (collectively, "the MGP sites"). Gas was manufactured at these sites from the 1850s until the 1930s, using both coal carbonization and carbureted water gas processes. One of the main by-products of both gas making processes was tar, which was extracted, stored and sold at each of the MGP sites. Various tar containment structures were used at the sites. Generally, these containment structures were built underground out of masonry, concrete or metal. After natural gas pipelines were developed in the mid-1900s, MGPs began to be dismantled. CILCO dismantled the First and Washington MGP in the late 1920s and the Persimmon and MacArthur MGPs in the early 1950s. During the dismantling process, the covers of the structures were removed and the tar was extracted and sold. However, not all of the tar could be removed. Significant amounts of tar remained in the structures, which were then filled with building debris or other materials. Over time, the underground containment structures leaked tar into the soil. Those leaks were caused by a myriad of reasons, including cracks, breaks, seismic shifts, vibrations from traffic, precipitation, changes in groundwater levels and flooding. The leaking of this tar and other tar-related constituents has caused soil and groundwater contamination. CILCO has spent over $5 million to investigate, remediate and mitigate environmental property damage, including soil and groundwater contamination, at and around these MGP sites. CILCO claims that the property damage occurred at the MGP sites throughout the period of the defendants' policies.
In 1985, after reviewing a report from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding possible environmental contamination at some MGP sites, CILCO learned that it owned the former MGP sites at issue in this case. In 1985 and 1986, CILCO visually inspected the former MGP sites but did not observe any evidence of contamination. In September 1986, workers found discolored and odorous soil at the MacArthur site. CILCO began a Phase I environmental investigation at the site. A preliminary investigation report was issued in April 1987 and concluded that tar constituents were present in the soil.
Thereafter, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) held a meeting with the environmental department managers for Illinois utility companies, including CILCO. At that meeting, CILCO learned about the potential environmental contamination at hundreds of former MGPs throughout Illinois.
In 1987, the IEPA entered into an agreement with CILCO whereby CILCO would enroll the MGP sites in the IEPA's Pre-Notice Site Cleanup Program ("Pre-Notice Program") and investigate and remediate, if necessary, the MGP sites one at a time. When CILCO enrolled in the Pre-Notice Program, the work at the MGP sites became subject to specific IEPA guidelines and instructions on how to proceed. The IEPA regularly reviewed, commented upon, and approved the work plans and reports prepared by CILCO. CILCO did not proceed with remediation until the IEPA had approved the work plans. Additionally, the IEPA regularly sent invoices to CILCO for "oversight costs", i.e., the time spent by IEPA employees in overseeing the investigation and remediation work. The Pre-Notice Program was replaced in 1995 by the Site Remediation Program, which also provided for voluntary cleanup of certain types of sites with IEPA oversight.
Pursuant to the Pre-Notice Program, CILCO began a Phase II investigation of the MacArthur site between 1988 and 1989. Groundwater contamination at this site was discovered in 1989. CILCO submitted a remedial action work plan to the IEPA in 1990. That plan was approved, and work at the MacArthur site was completed in 1991.
In 1991, CILCO began investigating the Persimmon site. In 1992, the preliminary investigation of the Persimmon site concluded that there was a high probability of contamination at the site. Remedial investigation/feasibility study work and field sampling plans for the Persimmon site were completed and submitted to the IEPA in September 1992. In 1993, CILCO acknowledged that contamination existed at the site. The IEPA approved CILCO's work plan for further site investigation. Cleanup of that site was completed in 1998.
The IEPA sent "No Further Action" letters for the MacArthur and Persimmon sites in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Those letters stated that CILCO was released from further responsibilities under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.1 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2002).
In June 1989, CILCO was advised by the developer of property adjacent to the First and Washington site that its property, located at First and Adams, was contaminated. CILCO later received a copy of an investigation report prepared by Hanson Engineers which stated that constituents of tar had been found in soil and groundwater at the First and Adams property. CILCO met with the developer in 1989 and 1990, but CILCO did not agree with the developer's proposals. In 1994, Vector-Springfield, the owners of the First and Adams property, threatened CILCO with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Com.
...subject to civil fines for a failure to comply. 42 U.S.C. section 9606(a), (b) (2000). Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 940, 277 Ill.Dec. 45, 795 N.E.2d 412, 425 (2003) (note the absence of any reference to "site measures"). In the alternative, the government can ......
-
Mashal v. City of Chi.
...LLC v. Kelly, 376 Ill.App.3d 60, 62, 314 Ill.Dec. 706, 875 N.E.2d 679 (2007); Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 940, 964, 277 Ill.Dec. 45, 795 N.E.2d 412 (2003). ¶ 58 We agree with the appellate court that while Judge Siebel's order may have removed the City's......
-
Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
...the appellate court declined to review defendants' appeals from the denial of three summary judgment motions. 342 Ill.App.3d 940, 965, 277 Ill.Dec. 45, 795 N.E.2d 412. We granted defendants' petitions for leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 315(a) (177 Ill.2d R. 315(a)). Pursuant to Supreme Co......
-
CONN. SPEC. INS. v. LOOP PAPER RECYCLING
...to ascertain and enforce the intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreement. Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 940, 950-51, 277 Ill.Dec. 45, 795 N.E.2d 412 (2003). A court must construe the policy as a whole and take into account the type of insurance......
-
Chapter 5
...S.E.2d 599 (2009) (payment for damages unquestionably caused by negligence). Illinois: Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 795 N.E.2d 412 (Ill. App. 2003), aff’d 821 N.E.2d 206 (Ill. 2004) (suit against insured was not required for indemnity obligation to arise under excess li......