United States Ninth Circuit

Dismissal of a plaintiff insurance company's subrogation suit against defendants under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for recovery of insurance payments it made to its insured for environmental response costs the insured incurred in cleaning up pollutants released on its property, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit under CERCLA 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 does not apply to section 107(a); 2) plaintiff could not bring a subrogation claim under CERLCA section 112(c) because plaintiff 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; and 3) plaintiff's state law claims were time-barred.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/15/2013
• Published 03/15/2013

Judges

• SMITH

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel