FOLLOW US

In the case of Brooklyn Union v. Century Indemnity, in the New York Supreme Court for New York County, the court entered a verdict in favor of a former operator of three manufactured gas facilities in a coverage dispute over toxic discharges into the Gowanus Canal. The question for the jury was whether and to what extent Century, as an excess insurer to Brooklyn Union was liable for coverage.

In April of this year, a jury gave the policyholder a big win after a long-fought trial regarding a dispute over coverage for the costs of cleaning up contaminants in the Gowanus Canal.

The jury said that Century Indemnity must cover the immense costs that Brooklyn Union has been incurring, and is likely to continue to incur by way of its contributions to the environmental remediation of the sites of several former manufactured-gas plants in New York City and of the Gowanus Canal located in Brooklyn.

The jury found that most of the wastewater discharges by Brooklyn Union Gas, over a period of almost 30 years, were accidental and should have been covered by Century Indemnity Insurance.

Since the 1800s,  Brooklyn Union had operated three manufactured gas facilities located along the Gowanus Canal and discharged contaminated wastewater from its refining coal tar, and other toxic byproducts it used in the development of its products.

Brooklyn Union, now owned by NorthernGrid, is seeking to recover the costs it incurred in cleaning up the canal of toxic discharges that occurred between 1941 and 1969. This was the first trial in the two-decades-old litigation.

For the litigants, the case hinged on whether or not the contaminant discharges were intentional or accidental, and whether or not Brooklyn Union provided timely notice of its coverage claims.

In June, Century Indemnity filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The attorneys for Century argued that the jury's verdict should be thrown out. Century claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial that showed property damage at the sites had ended, in addition to instructional and evidentiary errors.

Century also disputes the jury's allocation amounts awarded for each of the three sites, and as long as there is a dispute on how to determine the total period of injury and loss for allocation purposes, it's likely this case won't end anytime soon.