Uv liquidating trust

Rated 3.98/5 based on 780 customer reviews

On cross-appeal, AMICO argues that the trial court erred in holding that it had a duty to defend the insured parties under its insurance policies with UV Industries, Inc. The Midvale Pollution and the Underlying Litigation Between approximately 19, UV Industries, Inc., previously known as U. Smelting, Refining, & Mining Co., was engaged in ore milling operations at a 260-acre site in Midvale, Utah. Aetna, Hartford, and AMICO issued consecutive comprehensive general liability insurance policies to UV Industries from January 1966 through April 1980: Aetna issued five policies from January 1966 to January 1971 with limits of 0,000; Hartford issued four policies from January 1971 to March 1975 with limits of 0,000; and AMICO issued three policies from April 1975 to April 1980 with limits of 0,000 and

On cross-appeal, AMICO argues that the trial court erred in holding that it had a duty to defend the insured parties under its insurance policies with UV Industries, Inc. The Midvale Pollution and the Underlying Litigation Between approximately 19, UV Industries, Inc., previously known as U. Smelting, Refining, & Mining Co., was engaged in ore milling operations at a 260-acre site in Midvale, Utah. Aetna, Hartford, and AMICO issued consecutive comprehensive general liability insurance policies to UV Industries from January 1966 through April 1980: Aetna issued five policies from January 1966 to January 1971 with limits of $100,000; Hartford issued four policies from January 1971 to March 1975 with limits of $100,000; and AMICO issued three policies from April 1975 to April 1980 with limits of $200,000 and $1,000,000. Appellant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees American Motorists Insurance Co. Aetna claims that the trial court erred in holding that it did not have a cause of action for equitable subrogation against AMICO and Hartford for monies it paid in defending UV Industries, Inc. Liquidating Trust (Liquidating Trust) in an action brought by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Insurance Policies and Coverage Litigation During many, but not all, of the years that UV Industries was in business, it purchased insurance to cover its operations.

||

On cross-appeal, AMICO argues that the trial court erred in holding that it had a duty to defend the insured parties under its insurance policies with UV Industries, Inc. The Midvale Pollution and the Underlying Litigation Between approximately 19, UV Industries, Inc., previously known as U. Smelting, Refining, & Mining Co., was engaged in ore milling operations at a 260-acre site in Midvale, Utah. Aetna, Hartford, and AMICO issued consecutive comprehensive general liability insurance policies to UV Industries from January 1966 through April 1980: Aetna issued five policies from January 1966 to January 1971 with limits of $100,000; Hartford issued four policies from January 1971 to March 1975 with limits of $100,000; and AMICO issued three policies from April 1975 to April 1980 with limits of $200,000 and $1,000,000.

Appellant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees American Motorists Insurance Co. Aetna claims that the trial court erred in holding that it did not have a cause of action for equitable subrogation against AMICO and Hartford for monies it paid in defending UV Industries, Inc. Liquidating Trust (Liquidating Trust) in an action brought by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Insurance Policies and Coverage Litigation During many, but not all, of the years that UV Industries was in business, it purchased insurance to cover its operations.

,000,000.

Appellant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees American Motorists Insurance Co. Aetna claims that the trial court erred in holding that it did not have a cause of action for equitable subrogation against AMICO and Hartford for monies it paid in defending UV Industries, Inc. Liquidating Trust (Liquidating Trust) in an action brought by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Insurance Policies and Coverage Litigation During many, but not all, of the years that UV Industries was in business, it purchased insurance to cover its operations.

uv liquidating trust-26

In 1978, UV's Board of Directors announced a plan to sell Federal, one of the three companies.

It was agreed that UV was not in violation of the debentures.

On July 23, 1979, UV announced that it had entered into an agreement for the sale of most of its oil and gas properties to Tenneco Oil Company for 5 million cash.

UV Industries was subsequently dissolved, and all remaining assets were transferred to the Liquidating Trust. §§ 6901-6992, for costs arising from the cleanup of the hazardous substances at the Midvale property. That same year, UV Trust and Sharon Steel sought a partial summary judgment declaring that Aetna, Hartford, and AMICO had a duty to defend. It is based in part upon the sums that Aetna paid to defend the insured which were alleged in the original complaint. The insurance policies provided that AMICO would pay the insured “all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages ․ because of: (a) bodily injury or property damage, ․ caused by an occurrence․” Moreover, the policies provided that AMICO would defend its insured in “any suit against the insured alleging such injury or property damage and seeking damages which are payable under the terms of this policy, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false, or fraudulent.” Similar to most standard CGL policies, however, AMICO's policies generally excluded coverage for pollution: This policy does not apply ․ to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water.

In 1979, UV Industries conveyed most of its assets, including the Midvale property, to Sharon Steel Corporation. These two state actions were subsequently consolidated. Minn.1981), aff'd, 687 F.2d 261 (8th Cir.1982); State ex rel. The cross-claim is therefore not an independent action for affirmative relief. When those allegations, if proved, could result in liability under the policy, then the insurer has a duty to defend. As set forth above, from April 1, 1975, to April 1, 1980, AMICO contracted with UV to provide comprehensive general liability insurance (known in the industry as CGL policies). Under this interpretation, a policy may cover the pollution even where it occurs gradually over time, as long as it was not expected or intended.

Leave a Reply