 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.2/28/2002
s Aerojet argues the trial court erred in relying on Travelers, Aerojet fails to show grounds for reversal. Thus, Aerojet argues the intervening events analysis of Travelers was not appropriate in this case, because in Travelers, everyone agreed that the insured's intentional disposal of hazardous waste at the landfill caused groundwater contamination, and with this important predicate established, the focus was on whether other events occurred after the waste was disposed at the landfill. Aerojet says the insurers in this case had not submitted any evidence that some predicate event that was neither sudden nor accidental caused the groundwater contamination, and therefore Aerojet had no need to rely and did not rely on any type of "intervening" event. However, at the hearing on the summary judgment motion, Aerojet's counsel conceded for purposes of this motion that the "insurers have met their initial . . . burden under California law and that we now need to point out evidence in the record to create a genuine issue of fact." Thus, here as in Travelers, the predicate was established that Aerojet's intentional disposal activities caused groundwater contamination. Aerojet says each of the sudden and accidental releases it relied upon was an initial release of contaminants to the environment, unlike Travelers, where the alleged sudden and accidental releases occurred after the initial release of the contaminants to the environment. Aerojet also contends the trial court in this case erroneously conflated the concepts of initial and subsequent releases. However, the facts remain that (1) Aerojet presented no evidence in the summary judgment proceeding showing that any portion of the claimed damages was attributable to the sudden and accidental releases, as opposed to the routine disposal activities, and (2) Aerojet expressly elected not to address causation in the summary judgment proceeding in the trial court. Thus, Aerojet fails to show any reversible error.
We conclude Aerojet fails to show any grounds for reversal of the judgment with respect to the interpretation of "sudden and accidental."
V. Conflicting Inferences
Aerojet argues the trial court erred by resolving conflicting inferences against Aerojet. We shall conclude Aerojet fails to show grounds for reversal of the judgment.
In summary judgment proceedings, the moving party's affidavits are construed strictly, the opponent's affidavits are construed liberally, and doubts about the propriety of granting the motion are resolved in favor of the party opposing it. (Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 362.)
Aerojet claims the trial court made four erroneous inferences, regarding (a) explosions, (b) test firings of JATO (jet-assisted take-off) rocket motors, (c) test firings of liquid rocket engines, and (d) a release of the pollutant TCE (trichloroethylene) at Building 183.
A. Explosions
Aerojet notes it offered evidence of three separate explosions (in 1946, 1949, and 1955), but the trial court stated "none of the testimony offered to demonstrate that the explosions occurred establishes that any perchlorate dust or other residue actually reached the ground. [Fn. omitted.] Since Aerojet's evidence indicates that those three explosions occurred inside buildings [fn. omitted], it cannot simply be assumed that perchlorate dust escaped from the buildings." Aerojet says the trial court erred, because the evidence showed the explosions were "devastating," supporting an inference that they released perchlorate to the ground.
However, Aerojet fails to acknowledge that the trial court's order continued: "Even if the escape of perchlorate dust could be
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|