Wisconsin Supreme Court Reverses Edgerton: Recognizing CERCLA Response Costs as Damages in CGL Policies

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reverses Edgerton: Recognizing CERCLA Response Costs as Damages in CGL Policies

Introduction

The case of Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau et al. adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on July 11, 2003, marks a pivotal shift in the interpretation of Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policies concerning environmental cleanup obligations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The dispute centered around whether costs incurred by Johnson Controls for the remediation of contaminated properties were considered "damages" under standard CGL policies, thereby triggering insurers' obligations to indemnify and defend the insured.

Summary of the Judgment

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed its prior decision in City of Edgerton v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin (Edgerton), which had held that CERCLA response costs did not constitute "damages" under CGL policies. In the present case, the Court concluded that CERCLA response costs are indeed "damages" as per the policy language and that receiving a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) letter from the EPA should be construed as the commencement of a legal proceeding, thereby triggering the insurer's duty to defend. Consequently, the Court overruled Edgerton, establishing a clearer and more coherent framework for interpreting insurance coverage in the context of environmental liabilities.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily referenced previous cases, notably City of Edgerton v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin (Edgerton), School District of Shorewood v. Wausau Insurance Cos. (Shorewood), and General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Hills (Hills). Edgerton had established that CERCLA cleanup costs were not considered "damages" and that PRP letters did not trigger the duty to defend. Shorewood dealt with the interpretation of "damages" in the context of injunctive relief, and Hills countered Edgerton by recognizing CERCLA response costs as compensatory damages, thus indicating a need to reassess prior interpretations. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that Edgerton's reasoning was flawed and inconsistent with established principles of contract interpretation and remedies.

Legal Reasoning

The Court scrutinized the definition of "damages" within the CGL policies, emphasizing that under CERCLA, response costs are compensatory as they aim to remediate past environmental damages caused by the insured. It rejected the narrow interpretation from Edgerton that confined "damages" strictly to legal damages arising from court proceedings. The Court argued that CERCLA's liability framework inherently seeks compensation for past wrongs, aligning with the traditional understanding of "damages." Additionally, the Court found that PRP letters functionally equate to suits, given their adversarial and financially consequential nature, thus necessitating the insurer's duty to defend.

Impact

Overruling Edgerton has significant implications for both insurers and insured entities in Wisconsin. It clarifies that CERCLA response costs are covered under CGL policies as damages, expanding the scope of insurance coverage. This decision promotes fairness and predictability, ensuring that companies are not left to bear substantial environmental cleanup costs without indemnification. Moreover, it aligns Wisconsin's jurisprudence with several other jurisdictions that recognize CERCLA costs as insurable damages, fostering consistency in environmental insurance litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

CERCLA, commonly known as "Superfund," is a federal law enacted in 1980 to facilitate the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. It authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify contaminated sites, oversee remediation efforts, and seek compensation from responsible parties for cleanup costs.

Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) Policies

CGL policies are standard insurance contracts that provide coverage for businesses against claims arising from bodily injury, property damage, and personal or advertising injury caused by the insured's operations, products, or services. These policies typically include a duty to defend the insured against such claims and to indemnify them for covered damages.

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Letters

Under CERCLA, PRP letters are notifications sent by the EPA to entities suspected of contributing to environmental contamination. These letters inform recipients of their potential liability for cleanup costs and often require them to undertake or fund remediation efforts.

Duty to Defend and Indemnify

The duty to defend obligates the insurer to provide legal defense for the insured against covered claims, regardless of the merits of the case. The duty to indemnify requires the insurer to reimburse the insured for covered damages awarded in a lawsuit.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau fundamentally alters the landscape of environmental liability insurance within the state. By overruling Edgerton and reaffirming the principles set forth in Hills, the Court ensured that CERCLA response costs are rightfully recognized as compensatory damages under standard CGL policies. This not only upholds the reasonable expectations of insured entities but also aligns Wisconsin's legal framework with broader national trends, enhancing consistency and fairness in handling environmental cleanup obligations. Insurers must now recognize their expanded roles in defending and indemnifying policyholders against environmental liability claims, fostering a more robust and equitable approach to environmental risk management.

Case Details

Johnson Controls, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, a mutual company (f/n/a Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin), Affiliated FM Insurance Company, AIU Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company (as successor to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company), American Employers' Insurance Company, American Home Assurance Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Employers Reinsurance Corporation, Federal Insurance Company, First State Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Highlands Insurance Company, Landmark Insurance Company, London Market (certain underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Insurance Companies), National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company (as predecessor to Allstate Insurance Company), Puritan Insurance Company (f/n/a Manhattan Fire and Marine Insurance Company), Stonewall Insurance Company, Transamerica Premier Insurance Company, Tra
Year: 2003
Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Judge(s)

¶ 1. DAVID T. PROSSER, J. ¶ 124. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring). ¶ 133. JON P. WILCOX, J. (dissenting).

Attorney(S)

For plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Matthew J. Flynn, Jeffrey O. Davis, Rachel A. Schneider, Keith A. Bruett, and Quarles Brady LLP, Milwaukee, and John P. Kennedy, General Counsel, Johnson Controls, Inc., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Matthew J. Flynn. For defendant-respondent, Travelers Indemnity Company, there was a brief by Barry R. Ostrager, David W. Woll, Jonathan K. Youngwood, and Simpson Thacher Bartlett, New York, and Janice A. Rhodes and Kravit, Gass, Hovel Leitner, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by David W. Woll. For defendant-respondent, Employers Insurance of Wausau, there was a brief by Keith A. Dotseth, Scott J. Ryskoski, Patrick J. Boley, and Larson King, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Timothy J. Muldowney, Todd G. Smith, and LaFollette Godfrey Kahn, Madison, and Michael J. Cohen and Meissner, Tierney Fisher Nichols, S.C., Mlwaukee, and oral argument by Scott J. Ryskoski. For defendant-respondent, Transamerica Premier Insurance Company, there was a brief by George N. Kotsonis, Gregory A. Kotsonis and Law Offices of George Kotsonis, Milwaukee, and Edwin J. Hull III, David P. Cutler and Cutler Hull, Chicago, Illinois. An amicus curiae brief was filed by Eric J. Nystrom and Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Eugene R. Anderson, William G. Passannante, Gail Eckstein and Anderson Kill Olick, P.C., New York, New York; and Amy Bach, Mill Valley, California, on behalf of United Policyholders. An amicus curiae brief was filed by Eric Englund, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance. An amicus curiae brief was filed by Heidi L. Vogt and Cook Franke, S.C., Milwaukee, and Laura A. Foggan, John C. Yang, Thomas S. Garrett and Wiley Rein Fielding LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association. An amicus curiae brief was filed by William J. Mulligan, Michael A. Dodge, Amy B. Tutwiler and Davis Kuelthau, S.C., Milwaukee, and John D. Shugrue, Daniel J. Struck and Zevnik Horton, Chicago, Illinois, on behalf of Kraft Foods North America, Inc., and Kohler Company. An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robert H. Friebert, Shannon A. Allen and Friebert, Finerty St. John, S.C., Milwaukee, and Mark J. Plumer, Stephen T. Raptis and Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Wisconsin Utilities Association.

Comments