Legal Opinion

Federal Insurance v. MBL, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 26, 2013No. H036296; H036578PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PREMO, J.

After soil and groundwater contamination in the City of Modesto was traced back to a drycleaning facility known as Halford’s Cleaner’s (Halford’s), the federal government brought a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) action against the owners of the property on which Halford’s was located, as well as the lessees who owned and/or operated the facility, to recover the costs of monitoring and remediating the contamination. The defendants in the Lyon action subsequently filed third party actions against,…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Hollyway Cleaners & Laundry Co. v. Central National Insurance Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2016
  3. Hall CA-NV v. Old RepublicCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2021
  4. LA Terminals, Inc. v. United National Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2022
  5. LA Terminals, Inc. v. United National Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API