Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/ Loral, Inc., et al, No. 11-16272 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a subrogation suit against defendants for recovery of insurance payments to its insured, Taube-Koret, for environmental response costs Taube-Koret incurred in cleaning up pollutants released on its property. The court concluded that plaintiff had no standing to bring suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, section 107(a) because it did not incur any "costs of response" related to the removal or remediation of a polluted site, and because the common law principle of subrogation did not apply to section 107(a); plaintiff could not bring a subrogation claim under section 112(c) because it did not allege that Taube-Koret was a "claimant"; and plaintiff's state law claims were time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's third amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an insurance company’s subrogation suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for recovery of insurance payments made to the company’s insured for environmental response costs the insured incurred in cleaning up pollutants released on its property. The panel held that the insurance company lacked standing to bring suit under CERCLA § 107(a) because it did not incur any “costs of response” related to the removal or remediation of a polluted site, and because the common law principle of subrogation does not apply to § 107(a). The panel held that the insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim under CERLCA § 112(c) because the company did not allege that the insured was a “claimant,” or that it had made a claim either to the Superfund or to a potentially liable party. The panel held that the insurance company’s state law claims were time-barred. Dissenting, Judge Gould wrote that the majority had provided a reasoned explanation of why statutory subrogation under § 112(c) did not apply, but that the majority’s analysis of § 107(a) did not honor the insurance company’s right to equitable subrogation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.