Alabama Gas Corporation v. Travelers Casualty and Surety, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Alabama Gas Corporation. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-14345

Date Filed: 06/11/2014

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14345
________________________
Docket No. 2:10-cv-01840-IPJ

ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 11, 2014)
Before MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, *
District Judge.

*

Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia,
sitting by designation.

Case: 13-14345

Date Filed: 06/11/2014

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

This case is a state-law case involving a question of coverage under a series
of insurance contracts dealing with land, hazardous substances and clean-up costs.
In full opinions, the district court ruled by summary judgment for insurer and
against coverage for indemnification and against bad faith damages for the
insurer’s refusal to defend. After hearing oral argument and after deliberation, we
see no reversible error and affirm the judgment.
Briefly stated, we agree that the occurrences that might trigger coverage in
this case happened too early -- before 1949 -- for the proved pertinent policy
periods. About bad faith, we agree that, given the circumstances, the amount of
time that elapsed before the insurer’s express denial does not equal an earlier
constructive denial. And we agree that the question of whether a PRP letter from
the EPA triggered a defense obligation was debatable before the Supreme Court of
Alabama decided the question in this case. The record will not support bad faith.
AFFIRMED.

2