You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Land O' Lakes, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau

Citations: 728 F.3d 822; 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20208; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18036; 2013 WL 4565944Docket: 12-1752

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; August 29, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Land O' Lakes, Inc., an agricultural cooperative, pursued legal action against its insurers, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wausau and The Travelers Indemnity Company, seeking defense costs and indemnification under commercial general liability policies. This arose from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action under CERCLA concerning cleanup of an oil refinery site previously owned by a predecessor of Land O' Lakes. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers, finding that Land O' Lakes's breach of duty to defend claim was untimely under Minnesota's six-year statute of limitations. The court also held that the owned-property exclusion in the policies precluded indemnification for cleanup costs. On appeal, Land O' Lakes argued that the 2008 EPA PRP Letter constituted a new claim initiating a duty to defend, distinct from the 2001 letter, and contested the applicability of the owned-property exclusion. Applying Minnesota law, the appellate court affirmed that the 2001 PRP Letter triggered the duty to defend and upheld the owned-property exclusion, emphasizing Land O' Lakes's failure to show actual third-party property damage. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of coverage for remediation costs, maintaining that the cleanup pertained solely to Land O' Lakes's property.

Legal Issues Addressed

Causation in Insurance Coverage for Environmental Cleanup

Application: Land O' Lakes failed to demonstrate third-party property damage, which is required to bypass the owned-property exclusion.

Reasoning: Land O' Lakes has not demonstrated an 'actual injury' to third-party property, which is essential under the Domtar standard.

Duty to Defend under Commercial General Liability Policies

Application: The court held that the 2001 EPA PRP Letter constituted a suit, triggering the insurers' duty to defend Land O' Lakes, thus initiating the limitations period.

Reasoning: The court ruled that the 2001 EPA PRP Letter constituted a suit for arguably-covered damages, and the Insurers' failure to defend against it breached their duty under CGL policies, triggering a six-year limitations period under Minnesota law.

Interpretation of 'Suit' under Minnesota Law

Application: Minnesota law recognizes a PRP letter as a suit under CGL policies, and the court applied this interpretation to affirm the insurers' duty to defend.

Reasoning: The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that a PRP (Potentially Responsible Party) letter qualifies as a 'suit' under various Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies.

Owned-Property Exclusion in Insurance Policies

Application: The owned-property exclusion in the CGL policies relieved the insurers from indemnifying Land O' Lakes for cleanup costs.

Reasoning: Regarding the duty-to-indemnify claim, the court found that an owned-property exclusion in the policies barred coverage for Land O' Lakes's cleanup costs.

Statute of Limitations on Contract Actions

Application: Land O' Lakes's claim for breach of duty to defend was barred due to the six-year statute of limitations under Minnesota law.

Reasoning: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, citing two main reasons: (1) Land O' Lakes's claim for breach of duty to defend was barred by Minnesota’s six-year statute of limitations on contract actions.