harz family’s closing argument
DESCRIPTION
Harz Family’s Closing Argument. Harz, et al. v. California Capital Insurance Company. U.S. Post Office San Roque Station From State Street. The Site. Huge Plume. $7 or $8 Million cleanup, not considering the possible damage to the lower aquifer. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Harz Family’s Closing Argument
Harz, et al. v. California Capital Insurance
Company
U.S. Post Office San Roque Station From State Street
The Site
Huge Plume
$7 or $8 Million cleanup, not considering the possible damage to the lower aquifer.To this day, the size of the plume has not been determined.Plume maps show horizontal size, not vertical.Vertical definition of the plume has not been established.PCE hazardous substance.5 ppb – less than a teaspoon in drinking water exceeds drinking water standards.800 Feet from the McKenzie Well.
Concentration of PCE in Groundwater – Nov. 1999
“The Skunk”
“The Skunk” is Ten Feet From Harz Family Property
10 Feet
Undisputed in this Trial That Boot Breaks From Dutch Maid Caused The Contamination
Dr. Anne Farr Testified that the Boot Breaks Did It
No Defense Witness Testified to the Contrary
John Deloreto Testified that by 1995 at the Latest, the Deloreto Trust Knew Dutch Maid Was the Skunk
No Evidence Contrary to Evidence in the Harz Family’s Amended Complaint (Exhibit 32) and its Memorandum of Contentions of Law and Fact (Exhibit 39) that the Zells and the Deloreto Trust Were Legally Responsible
Insurer Knew Tanks Did Not Store Dry Cleaning Chemicals
Exhibit 5, p. 2Exhibit 5, p. 2
Insurer Knew Any Contamination from Tanks and Well Had Already Been Cleaned Up
Exhibit 5, p. 2Exhibit 5, p. 2
Insurer Knew TCE and PCE Were From Dry Cleaning Establishments
Exhibit 5, p. 2Exhibit 5, p. 2
Insurer Knew Two Dry Cleaners Were Next to the Harz Family Property
Exhibit 5, p. 2Exhibit 5, p. 2
But, the Insurer Lied and Said the Contamination Came from Leakage from Underground Tanks
Exhibit 5, pp. 7 - 8Exhibit 5, pp. 7 - 8
Insurer Was Looking to Deny Coverage
Exhibit 5, pp. 2 - 3Exhibit 5, pp. 2 - 3
Claims Against the Harz Family – Same or Less Than in Richard Cross-Complaint
Claimant Date Response Costs Under Health and
Saftey Code or CERCLA?
Declaratory Relief?
Waste? Private Nuisance?
Public Nuisance?
Trespass? Water Code?
Negligence? Contribution or Equitable Indemnity?
Ultrahazarous Activity?
Richard 4/25/94 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRichard 7/7/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRichard 7/18/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Deloretto 8/9/95 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTeam 8/17/95 Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes YesZell 8/25/95 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCity 9/6/95 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
S.E.A. 10/20/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes NoS.E.A. 11/3/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes NoS.E.A. 4/24/96 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Richard 1/2/97 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTeam 1/22/97 Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes YesS.E.A. 10/1/97 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Deloretto 11/10/00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Allegations of How the Harz Family Caused Contamination – Same or Less Than in Richard Cross-Complaint
Claimant Date Abandoned Well? Sewers? Tanks? Conduit Allegations?
Escape, Release or Dispersal
Allegations?Richard 4/25/94 Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 6, 11.)
Richard 7/7/95 Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 18.) Yes (Para. 18, 19.)
Richard 7/18/95 Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 18.) Yes (Para. 18, 19.)
Deloretto 8/4/95 Yes (Para. 4, 57.) Yes (Para. 5, 57.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 39.) Yes (Para. 56.)
Team 8/17/95 No No No No Yes (Para. 1, 10.)
Zell 8/25/95 Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 25.) Yes (Para. 41.)
City 9/6/95 No Yes (Para. 16.) No No Yes (Para. 16.)
S.E.A. 10/20/95 Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16.) Yes (Para. 25, 27, 33.)
S.E.A. 11/3/95 Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16.) Yes (Para. 25, 27, 33.)
S.E.A. 4/24/96 Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 16, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 16.) Yes (Para. 25, 27, 33.)
Richard 1/2/97 Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 18.) Yes (Para. 18, 19.)
Team 1/22/97 No No No No Yes (Para. 1, 10.)
S.E.A. 10/1/97 Yes (Para. 3, 19, 33.) Yes (Para. 19, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 19, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 19.) Yes (Para. 28, 30, 36.)
Deloretto 11/10/00 Yes (Para. 2, 3, 60.) Yes (Para. 5, 60.) Yes (Para. 2, 3, 60.) Yes (Para. 33.) Yes (Para. 45.)