Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
979106v71
RIMS Session INS202(Philadelphia, PA)
Wednesday, April 18, 20128:45 am – 10:00 am
Welcome to RIMS 2012 Annual Conference & Exhibition
“Managing Emerging Environmental Risks”
979106v72
SPEAKERS
Moderator:
Debbie L. GramerDirector, Global Risk ManagementArrow Electronics, Inc.
John G. Nevius, Esq., P.E.ShareholderAnderson Kill & Olick, [email protected]
Michele Schroeder, J.D., M.S.L.Product Underwriting –Zurich In North [email protected]
Gene P. Devine, J.D., SVPThe Treiber Group/Arthur J. GallagherRisk Management Services, [email protected]
979106v73
Disclaimer
• The views expressed by the participants in this program are not those of the participants’ employers, their clients, or any other organization.
• The opinions expressed do not constitute legal advice, or risk management advice.
• The views discussed are for educational purposes only, and provided only for use during this session.
979106v74
Managing EmergingEnvironmental Risks:
Increased Government Regulations – Financial Assurance
April 18, 2012Michele Schroeder – Zurich In North AmericaEnvironmental Business Division
979106v75
Overview
• Background of Environmental Financial Assurance• Current Federal Environmental and Land
Management Financial Assurance rules
• Insurance as a Financial Assurance Instrument• Emerging Financial Assurance Regulations
CERCLA 108(b)• Current status and open items
979106v76
Financial Assurance Background• Environmental Laws and Regulations
– Standards of operations and duties of care– Polluter pays
• Why Risk Transfer - Insurance?– Regulated entity voluntarily manages environmental risks
• Why Financial Assurance?– Government mandates demonstration of financial resources for
environmental risks and future environmental obligations• Adequately compensate affected third parties• Mitigates effects of bankruptcy; corporate dissolution; and
abandonment• Transfer ultimate resource management from regulated entity to
a “guarantor” – avoid reversion to Government
979106v77
Financial Assurance Background• Types of Acceptable Financial Assurance Instruments
– Surety bonds – default for payment– Bank letters of credit – guarantee / unconditional access– Insurance – terms and conditions– Trust funds or escrow accounts – Net worth test and parental guarantees
• Have changes in the economy affected use of instruments?– Surety bonds – superior credit rating; retract from certain classes– Bank letters of credit – fee increases; capacity limitation– Cash and asset depletion – funds, accounts, balance sheet, guarantees– Insurance
979106v78
EPA’s Federal Financial Assurance Regulations
RCRA 40 CFR 264 and 265 – third party bi and pd; corrective action; closure and post closure care
Hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, landfills
RCRA 40 CFR 258 – third party bi and pd; corrective action; closure and post closure care
Solid waste disposal facilities, landfills
TSCA 40 CFR 761 – third party bi and pd; corrective action; closure and post closure care
PCB commercial storage facilities
RCRA 40 CFR 280 – third party bi and pd; corrective action
Petroleum underground storage tanks
RCRA,SDWA 40 CFR 144 – plugging and abandonment/closure of wells
Deep well injection of hazardous waste; natural gas and oil; inject fluids for extraction of minerals; CO2;
OPA, CERCLA 33 CFR 138 – third party bi and pd; corrective action; natural resource damages
Vessels carry oil or hazardous substances
OPA, OCSLA 30 CFR 253 – third party bi and pd; corrective action and plugging and closure of wells
Offshore Oil facilities (oil exploration, drilling, production and transport)
979106v79
Land Management Federal Financial Assurance
Regulations
Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act – (SCMRA 30 CFR 800) land reclamation and mine closure and post closure maintenance
Coal mines
Bureau of Land Management (BLM 43 CFR 3809) land reclamation and mine closure and post closure maintenance
Hardrock mines
Atomic Energy Act (10 CFR 50, 60) – plant decomissioning and closure
Nuclear Facilities
US Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR 332) – restoration of wetlands
Wetland Mitigation Banks
979106v710
Financial Assurance• State administration – can expand scope/obligations and do!• Condition of operational permits or shut down and pay fines• Proof of financial assurance to controlling agency
• Amount (limit) of financial assurance 3rd party bodily injury and property damage
Size and number of tanks ,wells, vessels/throughput of product/site characteristics/land acreage etc. prescribed by regulation
Closure, post closure care, maintenance, land reclamation and corrective action
submit plan of operations and cost estimates for closure, post closure, maintenance and/or land reclamation for regulatory signoff
979106v711
Insurance Financial Assurance• Structure of insurance
– Terms and conditions – Underwriting process and insurance contract
• Payment for accidental occurrence/ unexpected future costs – Development of third party claim
• Adjustment to the insurance process for expected future costs (closure, corrective action, land reclamation)
• Fortuity– The risk involves elements outside of the control of the insured and the
insurer that may trigger a loss • Adequate risk transfer
– Structure risk transfer insurance above expected future costs or as additional coverage
• Account for expected future costs– Collateral; captives; etc.
979106v712
Insurance Financial AssuranceKey Underwriting Considerations
• The purpose of the financial assurance: expected v. unexpected future costs
• The environmental risks attendant to these industry operations• The operators ability to manage and mitigate the risks• Financial solvency/stability of the operator• Unique attributes of the facility to manage and mitigate the risks• Other risks posed by the surrounding area/location• Regulatory risk• Plan of operation and feasibility of implementation• Cost engineering/estimate evaluation • Duration of risk• Limits for risk
979106v713
Emerging Federal Financial Assurance Regulations
CERCLA Section 108 (b) 74 Fed. Reg., 143, pg. 37213 July 28. 2009Proposed rule identifies industry segments subject to Environmental Financial Assurance
• Hard rock mining industry – extract, beneficiate or process metals (ie: copper, gold, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium and zinc and non metallic, nonfuel minerals (ie: asbestos, gypsum, phosphate rock and sulfur)
CERCLA Section 108 (b) 75 Fed. Reg. 3, pg. 816January 6, 2010Proposed rule identifies industry segments subject to Environmental Financial Assurance
• Electric power generation, transmission and distribution (due to coal ash) NAICS 2211
• Waste management and remediation services NAICS 562
• Wood product manufacturing NAIC 321
• Fabricated metal product manufacturing NAICS 332
• Electronic and electrical equipment manufacturing NAICS 334 and 335
• Basic chemical manufacturing industry NAICS 3251
979106v714
CERCLA Section 108 (b) 75 Fed. Reg. 3, pg. 816January 6, 2010Proposed rule identifies industry segments subject to Environmental Financial Assurance
• Resin, synthetic rubber and artificial synthetic fibers and filaments manufacturing NAICS 3252
• Pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural chemical manufacturing NAICS 3253
• Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing NAICS 3255
• Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing NAICS 3256
• Other chemical product and preparation manufacturing NAICS 3259
• Petroleum refineries NAICS 32411
• Asphalt paving, roofing, and saturated materials manufacturing NAICS 32412
• Other petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry (not coal mining) NAICS 32419
Emerging Federal Financial Assurance Regulations
979106v715
Why? and When? • CERCLA 108 (b) and Sierra Club v. Johnson (D.C. N.D. Calif. 2009)
–Compel EPA to act
• Identified industry segments–In the past generated large superfund program costs–Potential for substantial on-site releases of hazardous waste
• When –Was Spring 2011? Never happened–Was March 2012? Never happened–Is December 2012? Doubtful–Likely 2013? Final rules begin to roll out
979106v716
Open Items• Duplicate existing obligations – more administrative burdens
–CERCLA 114(d) pre-emption clause or Waiver? • Not accurate/excessive Financial Assurance limit may be required?
–Old superfund data as basis to calculate future amounts• Pre-environmental regulation or risk management/best practices
–“One Size fits all” approach • Without consideration to unique attributes/risk management
• Scope of Financial Assurance not determined? –Corrective action, closure and post closure maintenance, land reclamation–3rd party bodily injury and property damage
• What instruments will be acceptable?–Discussion to disqualify net worth / corporate or parental guarantee
979106v717
The information in this presentation was compiled from sources believed to be reliable for informational purposes only. All sample policies and procedures herein should serve as a guideline, which you can use to create your own policies and procedures. We trust that you will customize these samples to reflect your own operations and believe that these samples may serve as a helpful platform for this endeavor. Any and all information contained herein is not intended to constitute legal advice and accordingly, you should consult with your own attorneys when developing programs and policies. We do not guarantee the accuracy of this information or any results and further assume no liability in connection with this publication and sample policies and procedures, including any information, methods or safety suggestions contained herein. Moreover, Zurich reminds you that this cannot be assumed to contain every acceptable safety and compliance procedure or that additional procedures might not be appropriate under the circumstances The subject matter of this publication is not tied to
any specific insurance product nor will adopting these policies and procedures ensure coverage under any insurance policy.
979106v71818
RIMS Session 2012Wednesday, April 18, 2012
8:45 am – 10:00 am
Managing Emerging Environmental Risks:Energy Use and Related Developments
Presented by John G. Nevius, Esq., P.E.Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.
979106v719
II. Energy Use and Related Developments
A. Climate Change Litigation1. Key Legal Issues2. The Duty to Defend3. The Cinergy Case: Compliance Related Litigation4. D&O Liabilities Related to “Environmental”
DisclosuresB. Hydro-Fracking Coverage Implications
979106v72020
“Climate Claims Are the New Asbestos”National Underwriter (May 29, 2009)
Or Are They Just Another Millennium Bug…?
979106v72121
979106v722
The images show the ice cap as it was in 1979 and the ice cap in 2003.
Source: awitness.org© Dan R. Anderson, UW-Madison (RIMS-SD-AK)
979106v723
Ecosystem Risks Source: United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
© Dan R. Anderson, UW-Madison (RIMS-SD-AK)
979106v724
Global Warming – Where Are We Now?Key Legal and Coverage Issues
– Political Question Doctrine– Causation has several layers:
• Do humans impact the temperature of the planet?• Assuming that there is global warming, did it contribute
to the plaintiffs’ claims? • Even assuming the above, did defendants’ conduct
caused global warming?
– Standing– Duty to Defend; P.D. and B.I.; D&O and E&O?
979106v725
Key Issues Related To Property Coverage
• Climate change impact:– Higher incidences of and/or more costly property and business interruption
claims as long as “resulting” damages are covered– Issue of anti-concurrent causation
• All-Risk policies provide coverage for multiple perils and/or business losses with different coverage amounts and deductibles based on:– The covered peril (e.g. flood v. wind)– The type of loss (e.g. property damage, business interruption, extra expenses)
• Insured must not only track, document and calculate losses, but must:– Put these losses in the proper coverage category or “buckets”– Apply appropriate deductibles and limits to each “bucket”
979106v726
Proper Characterization, Tracking and Presentation of Losses and Costs!
Illustrative Case: St. Paul v. Cinergy
•Allegations that energy company violated CAA (as part of a national enforcement decision by the EPA)
•No “damages” on account of “property damage” but seeking to recover costs necessary to comply with the law and prevent future harm
•Basis for denial of the duty to defend?
979106v727
Proper Characterization, Tracking and Presentation of Losses and Costs!
3. Mitigation v. Prophylactic:
• Internal costs (your own employees)
• Gray areas
• RI/FS distinction (one example of how courts have drawn a line)
• Costs to prepare the Proof of Loss…
979106v728
979106v729
979106v730
Suits Claiming Nuisance/Seeking Damages
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, et al., N.D. Cal. (February 2008).
• Native Village in Alaska brought a nuisance suit against 24 self-identified major oil companies seeking relocation costs and damages regarding fisheries.
• Plaintiffs seek joint and several liability for nuisance and civil conspiracy, and seek monetary damages and declaratory judgment for past and future damage caused by global warming.
979106v731
Suits Claiming Nuisance/Seeking Damages
• On September 30, 2009, Federal nuisance dismissed – state law claims?
• Dismissal based upon the attenuated nature of the causal link between the claimed injuries and any particular defendants’ conduct, and on the basis that the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions was an issue best left to the political branches of government.
• Appeal to 9th Cir. Pending (Briefing stage)
979106v732
O.K., But Is There Coverage?Steadfast Ins. Co. v. AES
Related Declaratory Judgment Coverage Case pending in VA state court
– Summary Judgment on Occurrence for insurance interests – but is it?
– Is there a duty to defend?• City of Chesapeake…• Is a disinfectant an added pollutant?
979106v733
Coverage Defenses
• Loss In Progress• Attenuated Causation / No Occurrence• Non-Standard Pollution Exclusion Language
VA Supreme Court rejected, but rehearing pending.
979106v734
Uncovered Risks Abound• International Trade Risks
– Carbon Content Tariffs– Communications/coordination failures
• Failure to Plan Risks
– For Peak Oil– For rising power costs– For higher cost raw materials
• “Best Available Technology” Risks
– Costs to conform to new requirements– Loss of competitive position due to changes
979106v735
Existing Coverage
• Because global warming liabilities largely would result from policyholders’ normal business operations, CGL policies reasonably should provide coverage.
• Reasonable corporate emitters would not likely have considered CO2 to be environmental pollution?– The EPA generally has not labeled it a pollutant –
regulatable – April 2009 “Endangerment.”– Congress has only instructed federal agencies to study the
issue.– The only references in the Clean Air Act to CO2 are in non-
regulatory provisions.
979106v736
Environmental Insurance Policies – A Possible Solution
• What are the Damages?– Cleanup Costs?
• Air scrubbers, et al. – Feasible?– Property Damage?
• Loss of Use – Natural resource damages • Physical Injury - Dislocation
– Bodily Injury? • Increased severity/spread of contagious diseases by
extending range of disease-carrying insects • Side Affect - Altering markets for life / health insurance
Or, will it be in some form of Fine or Penalty (i.e., NRD)?
979106v737
Environmental Insurance Policies – A Possible Solution
• Potential Constraints– Naturally Occurring Substances Exclusion– Known Conditions Exclusion– Intentional Non-Compliance (CAA)– Fines & Penalties Exclusion
• Biggest Immediate Benefit– Defense Cost Coverage – all you typically need is an
allegation of liability for the “Duty to Defend” to kick in.
979106v738
Potential Liabilities ofDirectors & Officers
• Shareholder derivative suits or class actions - any perceived failure by corporate leadership to show adequate care in avoiding or mitigating global-warming liabilities.
• Moreover, Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K requires companies to disclose “known uncertainties” that could materially affect their bottom line.
979106v739
Climate Change Risk Disclosure Requirements
• SEC - No specific “climate” disclosure requirements
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners - “Climate Risk Disclosure Survey”
• Under certain circumstances a failure to disclose vulnerability to global warming suits could create exposure…
979106v740
SEC Disclosure Guidelines• No specific regulations for climate change disclosures, but
some general requirements in place for impacts to/from the environment
• SEC provides guidance on climate change disclosure requirements in relation to existing regulations in February 2010
• Companies should consider and disclose:– Impact of Legislation and Regulation– Impact of International Accords– Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends– Physical Impacts of Climate Change
• New guidance “may” have D&O implications
979106v741
Coverage For Directors & Officers• D&O Environmental Pollution Exclusion
– May apply depending on allegations of the claim and relation to environmental pollution.
– Actions incidental to pollution – allegedly misleading statements – re: a decline in share price from environmental pollution – less likely to trigger.
– “Best Practices”: enhance D&O coverage to include “environmental mismanagement claims.”
979106v742
Importance of Shale Gas to the USA – Hydro fracking Shale formations represent a growing source of natural gas for the
nation and are among the busiest oil and gas plays in the country.
U.S. Departmentof Energy , 12/09
U.S. Department of Energy , 12/10
979106v743
New Report on Global Shale Gas Reserves• U.S. DOE released a new report on April 5, 2011 that assessed 48 shale gas
basins in 32 countries, containing almost 70 formations.http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
979106v744
Plenty of Challenges Ahead
Source: C.B. Veil – taken in Ithaca, NY, June 2010 [email protected]
979106v745
Presented by Gene P. Devine, JD, SVPArthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc.
Managing Emerging Environmental Risks:
Natural Resource Damage Liability
979106v746
“Injury or loss of land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States ... any State or local government, any foreign government, [or] any Indian [T]ribe."
NRD DEFINED
979106v747
NRD Liability
• CERCLA • OIL POLLUTION ACT (OPA)(Post Valdez) • Various Citizen Suit Provisions:
– Clean Water Act– Clean Air Act
Contain power to act on behalf of the people in certain circumstances.
979106v748
WELL KNOWN CASES
Deepwater HorizonU.S. v. Exxon (Valdez)U.S. v. Montrose Chem. Co.Morton International, Inc. v. GeneralAccident Insurance CompanyCoeur D’Alene Tribe v. ASARCO, Inc.Commencement Bay Superfund Site
979106v749
Deepwater Horizon
• $1 Billion “Early Restoration” agreement announced by Trustees and BP on April 21, 2011
• On Dec. 12, 2011, the NRDA Trustees released the Deepwater Horizon Draft Phase I Early Restoration Plan & Environmental Assessment (DERP/EA) for public comment
• 8 proposed projects for initial round of Early Restoration, two each in AL, FL, LA and MS
979106v750
U.S. v. Exxon (Valdez)
Nearly $1 Billion Award to Federal and State (Alaska) Trustees
$25 Million in Fines $100 Million in Restitution (Does NOT include
private party actions)
979106v751
U.S. v. Montrose Chem. Co.883 F. Supp. 1396 (C.D. Cal. 1995), rev’d on other
grounds, 104 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1997)
The Discovery Rule: Looks at the specific Trustee’s knowledge:
– NOAA Site Review– NOAA Paper– S. Cal. Coastal Water Research Project– Cal. Dept. of Parks & Recreation– Cal. Dept. of Fish & Game
979106v752
Morton International, Inc. v. GeneralAccident Insurance Co.
134 N.J. 1, 629 A.2d 831 (1993)
• Pre-1985 CGL Insurance Policies Should Cover NRD
See also General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. State of New Jersey, 143 N.J. 462, 672 A.2d 1154 (1996) (Environmental Defense Costs v. Indemnity Costs)
979106v753
Coeur D’Alene Tribe v. ASARCO, Inc. 280 F. Supp.2d 1094 (D. Idaho 2003)
Original Allegation of over $1B in “damages” $30 million NRD Award $43 million remedy Sole or Proximate Cause If Not Commingled CERCLA S.O.L. – 3 Years From Discovery
979106v754
CURRENT TRENDS – The New “Environmental Tax”?
It’s not just “NRD” as defined.There are a growing number of “Superfund” type actions underway where cleanup of the “natural resources” is the main focus:
– Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY (USEPA)– 18 Mile Creek, Lockport, NY (USEPA)– Lower Passaic River, Newark, NJ (NJDEP/USEPA)These are not traditional “NRD” claims.
979106v755
Gowanus Canal
979106v756
Lower Passaic River
979106v757
WHY NOW?
In part it’s driven by louder public outcry combined with greater enforcement:
– USEPA FY 2011 BUDGET for Enforcement:• $618M
– USEPA FY 2012 BUDGET for Enforcement:• $621M
One of the few areas within EPA which saw an increase from last year to this year.
979106v758
Current State NRD Trends
At least 36 States have some form of an active NRD program and are getting more active in pursuing recoveries.Includes NY, NJ, MA, CA, CO, WA and COVary widely in scope, focus and enforcementNot just tied to CERCLA or OPA, but pursuant to State statute and regulatory frameworkGenerates $100s of $M in revenue to States
979106v759
Who Is Liable?
In these more recent cases/trends, any party that has possibly contributed to the pollution or degradation of the natural resource.
– Example: Riparian Property Owners• Intentional / Unintentional Discharges
– Storm Drains, SPDES Permits– Leaking USTs– Manufacturing Activities (floor drains, overspray, emissions)
• Latent / Legacy Pollution– On-Site or Off-Site Sources
979106v760
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Four applicable Statutes of Limitations:– Non-NPL Sites– NPL “Superfund” Sites– Native American Tribes– States
Each of the above has different SOL – check with your environmental attorney for specific clarification
979106v761
GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE?
EPA Has Even Contemplated Recovery of Insurance Proceeds with Respect to NRD See In re Energy Co-op., Inc., 173 B.R. 363, 366 (N.D. Ill.
1994)
EPA’s similar treatment of CERCLA response costs and NRD, EPA’s recognition of the potential for insurance coverage for both, and the court’s acceptance of the settlement.
979106v762
Timing of the GL Coverage -Triggering Occurrence is Crucial
Before 1973 or 1985 – significant years in evolution of “Pollution Exclusion”
“Release” has to occur after December 11, 1980 (post-enactment of CERCLA).
979106v763
NRD = PROPERTY DAMAGE?
YES, NRD = Third-Party Property Damage:See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Pintlar Corp., 948 F.2d 1507, 1514 (9th Cir. 1991) (the government has a “quasi-sovereign interest in environmental resources.”).
See United States v. Compaction Systems Corp., 88 F. Supp.2d 339, 353 (D.J.J. 1999)
979106v764
GL COVERAGE ISSUES
• “As Damages” – damages do not occur until quantified = when Trustee incurs expenses
• Owned Property Exclusion – is it truly 3rd-party PD?
• “Suit” – are these claims in fact “suits”?• Expected/Intended – goes to intention of
discharge, dispersal, release or escape…
979106v765
Environmental Insurance – A Feasible Solution
Most PLL policies affirmatively include NRD within the definition of “Property Damage”:•Physical injury to or destruction of tangible property of parties other than an Insured, including the resulting loss of use and, except with respect to tangible property located on an Insured Property, diminution in value thereof; •Loss of use, but not diminution in value, of tangible property of parties other than an Insured that has not been physically injured or destroyed; or• Natural Resource Damage.
979106v766
Environmental Insurance
• Under most traditional Pollution Liability (PLL) policies, a claim must result from a discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants from a “covered location” in concentrations greater than those present in the natural environment.
• This presents two possible hurdles:1. Proof it originated from a “covered location”, and2. Proof the concentration is greater than naturally
existing conditions.
979106v767
Nuances to Watch Out For
– Off-Site v. On-Site?• When dealing with Groundwater Contamination, while
the majority of States view GW as property of the States, some States view GW as property of the landowner.
– Cleanup Costs• Most PLL policies include “Restoration Costs” – the def.
varies, but typically includes the cost to repair, replace or restore real or personal property that is damaged during work performed in the course of incurring Clean-Up Costs.
– Fines and Penalties• Some PLL policies offer coverage for “Civil” fines and
penalties, and only exclude “Criminal”
979106v768
Environmental Insurance
Biggest Immediate Benefit
Defense Cost Coverage – all you typically need is an allegation of liability for the “Duty to Defend” to kick in. Most policy forms include not just defending against ‘suits’ but also include coverage for legal fees incurred in dealing with regulatory agencies in furtherance of a claim for “cleanup costs” or “property damage”.
One claim / allegation and the policy will pay for itself.
979106v770
IV. Additional IssuesA. Hydro-FrackingB. State of the MarketC. Other Issues
1. Captives2. Green Buildings3. Indoor Air Quality/Vapor Intrusion4. What is ISO doing?
70
979106v771
A. Hydro-FrackingBrief Summary By State
Disclosure of fluid constituents?
PA – Full speed aheadNY – Generic Supplemental EIS – a definite maybeWV – Fast tracking new regulationsMD – Wait and seeTX – Been there, done that
979106v772
Third-Party Liability Claims• Likely Insurer Defenses
– Pollution Exclusions• Some policies are designed to protect against pollution-
related bodily injury or property damage – these policies may not contain a pollution exclusion
• But….• In the mid-1980’s general liability policies began
including a form of pollution exclusion commonly known as the “absolute” pollution exclusion
72
979106v773
But…
• Louisiana has held that the absolute pollution exclusion is ambiguous and presents a question of fact regarding its applicability to a given occurrence. See Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119 (La. 2000)
73
979106v774
The amount of money involved may mean that once again there are efforts to do away
with or soften the pollution exclusion:
• What if the fracking does not use chemicals?• What if the chemicals are not the ultimate cause of
the damage?• What if natural gas is not a pollutant?• Separate allegations of negligence?• E&O coverage?
74
979106v775
Potential Claims• Energy/Drilling Companies• Individuals & Commercial Businesses
– Property Damage• Well Blow-Outs• Seismic activities beneath insured property: Collapse, Cracking, Shifting,
Sink holes
– Utility Service Interruption• Provides coverage for losses that the policyholder incurs due to the interruption of
utility services that result from physical damage to the property that supplies the utility.
• For example, if hydraulic fracturing activities results in your business losing access to its water services, and your business then incurs losses because of interruption of service, you may have an insurable loss – i.e. a farm’s inability to water its crops or provide water to its livestock
979106v776
B. State of the Market
1. Michele2. Gene3. John• The number of companies offering "environmental" coverage
has exploded, but which ones will have the experience, resources and staying power to be there when called upon in the future?
76
979106v777
C. Other Issues1. ‘Captive’ Insurance
• Used by many large firms to comply with requirements that they carry insurance.
The captives are subsidiaries of the firms While captives are accepted as covering under many federal
requirements, some states do not accept them for the same purpose under their regulations
• Each state has its own ‘captives’ rules• Companies can pick the state in which to incorporate their
captives • Vermont is the preferred home state
979106v778
2. Green Building Issues• Real Estate Implications
– Structuring Contractual Undertakings
• Contractor Liability and Spreading Risk• U.S. Green Building Council• 82% of corporate America is expected to
“green” more than 16% of its real estate portfolio
_______________________* 2007 McGraw Hill Construction, Greening of Corporate America – Small Market Report, updated in 2009.
979106v779
2. Green Building Issues
• Need for National Standards• Potential for Disputes*
– Shaw Development v. Southern Builders, $7.5M luxury condo in Maryland supposed to be “environmentally friendly” – Silver LEED
– Arbitration settled – mechanics lien, breach of contract, negligence, loss of $635,000 in tax credits
_____________* See also John G. Nevius: Green-Building and Renewable-Energy Insurance Claims: Where Are We Now?, Environmental Claims Journal, Issue 21(4) (December 22, 2009)
979106v780
3. Indoor Air Quality/Vapor Intrusion
4. What is ISO doing?
979106v781
THANK YOUGene P. Devine, Esq., EVP
(516) [email protected]
Gene P. Devine, Esq. recently joined Arthur J. Gallagher, previously he was an Executive Vice President at JCH in Rockville Center having joined JCH in 2001. Prior to JCH, Gene was a Vice President and environmental specialty broker in the New York City office of Marsh & McLennan where he managed numerous major accounts including multiple site transactions, finite, and blended finite insurance programs. For five years prior to joining Marsh, Gene was a managing attorney in AIG's Environmental Claims Department where he handled claims brought under Cost Cap and other environmental policies. His technical experience as a field biologist and environmental analyst for a local regulatory agency in New York round out his understanding of environmental law and the issues surrounding regulatory enforcement. He is responsible for manuscripted environmental insurance policies and negotiating policy terms and conditions with insurance carrier’s counsel. Gene is a member of the New York State Bar Association's Environmental Law Section.
979106v782
THANK YOUJohn G. Nevius, Esq., P.E.
(212) [email protected]
John G. Nevius is a shareholder and Chair of the Environmental Law Group in the New York office of Anderson Kill and has successfully resolved and litigated a variety of legal and technical matters, most of which involve insurance coverage. He has represented numerous Fortune 500 companies and has extensive experience trying or arbitrating complex environmental, telecommunications, construction, real estate and work-place safety disputes generally on behalf of policyholder clients.
He is routinely retained by policyholders, developers and other lawyers to evaluate, and maximize, recovery of insurance assets. He is also a Senior Consultant at Anderson Kill Insurance Services (AKIS), a non-legal subsidiary of the firm as well as an Adjunct Faculty member at Pace University Law School where he teaches a courses on Environmental Science and on Climate Change and Insurance.
Mr. Nevius is a Registered Professional Engineer (PE 045229E) and has a J.D. from Pace University School of Law with a concentration in environmental law. He has Masters degrees in Civil/Systems Engineering as well as Geology from the University of Pennsylvania.
979106v783
THANK YOUMichele Schroeder, J.D., M.S.L.
Michele Schroeder(516) 678-6602
Michele Schroeder leads environmental risk management and product development for environmental risks at Zurich. Her responsibilities include the development and oversight of environmental underwriting standards of practice. She provides underwriting and business counsel in areas of environmental risk, law and financial assurance and concerning environmental insurance products. She evaluates environmental risks, and develops and drafts policy language for complex deals and emerging risk areas. Michele is an attorney licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut. Michele came to Zurich in 1993 from private practice in Washington D.C and N.Y. where she participated in the defense of general litigation including construction and superfund cases in state and federal court. Michele has a bachelors degree in Environmental Studies form SUNY – Binghamton and received her Masters in Environmental Law and Policy and Juris Doctorate from Vermont Law School.
979106v784
As part of RIMS green initiatives, there are no printed handouts. Visit www.RIMS.org/2011Handouts to download available handouts. Printing on Demand stations are available in Level 1 Lobby of the Vancouver convention Centre, as well as in RIMS Cyber stations located in booths #227 and #1931 in the Exhibit Hall.
