Gould, Inc. v. Arkwright Mutual Insurance
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CONABOY, District Judge.
Presently before this Court are the various motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Employers Insurance of Wausau (“hereinafter Wausau”). 1 Defendant Wausau moves for summary judgment on the ground that there is no existing coverage in the remaining insurance policy it issued to Plaintiff Gould because of either the pollution exclusion clause or the known loss doctrine.
For the reasons which follow, we will deny Defendant Wausau’s motion for summary judgment on both the pollution exclusion clause and the doctrine of known loss.
I
BACKGROUND
On…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- James R. WHITE, Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Sondra L. McKenna and James R. McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Childers v. JosephCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United National Insurance v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- State v. Hydrite Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- State v. Hydrite Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005