Legal Opinion
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gulf Resources & Chemical Corp.
District Court, D. Idaho
Decided March 31, 1989No. Civ. 87-3043, 87-3082PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RYAN, Chief Judge.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURE
On October 18, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally notified Defendant Gulf Resources & Chemical Corporation (Gulf) that Gulf had been tentatively identified as a “potential responsible party” (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. Because of this, Gulf became subject to a claim by the EPA that Gulf was responsible for the costs of cleaning up the Bunker Hill site. 1
On January 8, 1985, Plaintiff Aetna Casualty & Surety Company…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Paul J. Mraz v. Canadian Universal Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Casey v. Highlands InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Armco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
- State of Idaho v. Bunker Hill Co.District Court, D. Idaho · 1986
3Cited by24 opinions
- AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Maury A. Ryan, D/B/A Ryan, Klimek, Ryan Partnership v. Royal Insurance Company of America, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- A.Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.