Douglas Ridge Rifle Club v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Filing 45

OPINION AND ORDER - Douglas Ridge's motion 31 for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. St Paul, as Douglas Ridge's liability insurer, has a duty to defend Douglas Ridge against the claims asserted by Benjamin in the case Benjamin v. Douglas Ridge Rifle Club, (CV 07-1144-HA, in the District of Oregon, filed in 2007), from the date of tender beginning August 7, 2007. St Paul's motion 37 for summary judgment is DENIED. Signed on 1/8/10 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N P O R T L A N D DIVISION

D O U G L A S R I D G E RIFLE C L U B , PlaintifI,

CV.08-29-AC OPINION A N D O R D E R

v.
ST. P A U L FIRE & MARINE I N S U R A N C E CO., Defendant.

A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge:

Opinion
P l a i n t i f f D o u g l a s R i d g e R i f l e C l u b ( " D o u g l a s R i d g e " ) filed this a c t i o n for b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t and declaratory j u d g m e n t asking the court t o o r d e r defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. ("St. P a u l " ) t o p r o v i d e a d e f e n s e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t filed a g a i n s t i t b y J o h n B e n j a m i n . B o t h p a r t i e s have m o v e d for summary j u d g m e n t o n the issue o f St. P a u l ' s duty t o defend. The court finds t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f b o t h t h e S e c o n d a n d T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o m p l a i n t m a y b e

Page 1- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

construed to allege claims that are covered b y the relevant insurance policies a n d that trigger S1. P a u l ' s duty to defend under those policies. P l a i n t i f f is entitled to partial summary judgment. S1. P a u l ' s m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s d e n i e d .
Background

In 1956, D o u g l a s R i d g e o p e n e d i t s d o o r s a s a n o u t d o o r s h o o t i n g r a n g e o n p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n E a g l e Creek, O r e g o n (the " P r o p e r t y " ) . ( P a t e Decl. ' 2 . ) D o u g l a s Ridge o f f e r s i t s m e m b e r s s i x s e p a r a t e s h o o t i n g r a n g e s a n d c o u r s e s i n h u n t i n g a n d m a r k s m a n s h i p . ( P a t e Decl. , 3 . ) D o u g l a s R i d g e purchased its property liability insurance from S1. Paul continuously over the period between 1956 a n d 1980, w i t h the exception o f August 1978 to August 1979. (Stipulation Re: Insurance Policies, Exh. B.) The policy i n effect from August 1957 to August 195 8 (the "Policy") provided, i n pertinent p a r t , that: In consideration o f t h e payment o f the premium . . . St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance C o m p a n y ( h e r e i n c a l l e d the C o m p a n y ) A G R E E S w i t h t h e I n s u r e d . . . Coverage B - Property D a m a g e L i a b i l i t y T o p a y o n b e h a l f o f t h e I n s u r e d a l l sums w h i c h t h e I n s u r e d s h a l l b e c o m e legally obligated to p a y as damages because o f injury to o r destruction o f property, i n c l u d i n g t h e loss o f u s e t h e r e o f , c a u s e d b y accident a n d arising o u t o f t h e h a z a r d s h e r e i n a f t e r defined. Defmition o f Hazards Division 1 - Premises - Operations T h e o w n e r s h i p , m a i n t e n a n c e o r u s e o f the p r e m i s e s , a n d a l l o p e r a t i o n s necessary o r i n c i d e n t a l thereto.

II. Defense, Settlement, Supplementary Payments With respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy . . . for property d a m a g e l i a b i l i t y , t h e C o m p a n y shall: (a) defend any suit against the Insured alleging such injury, sickness, disease

Page 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

or destruction and seeking damages on account thereof, even i f such suit is g r o u n d l e s s , false o r f r a u d u l e n t [ . ]

V I I . Policy P e r i o d , T e r r i t o r y
This policy applies only to accidents which occur during the policy period[.] EXCLUSIONS This Policy does n o t apply:

(k) under Coverage[] B[,] to injury to o r destruction o f . . . property owned or occupied b y o r rented to the Insured[.] (Stipulation Re: Insurance Policies, Exh. B.) The parties agree that the language from the Policy governs this dispute.! O n August 3, 2007, John Benjamin filed a citizen suit in this court against Douglas Ridge asserting claims for violations o fthe Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as well as a claim for public nuisance (the "Benjamin Complaint"). Benjamin asserts that Douglas R i d g e ' s actions have "adversely affected plaintiff's ability to use and enjoy the Clackamas River for swimming, fishing and boating." (Benjamin CompI.
~

6.)

Benjamin generally alleges that "hundreds o f thousands o f pounds o f lead have b e e n discharged, disposed of, and abandoned i n the ground, water, and wetlands a t and around the [Property] i n violation o f federal and state environmental laws." (Benjamin CompI. ~ 1.) Benjamin describes a good p o r t i o n o f t h e P r o p e r t y a s l o w - l y i n g w e t l a n d s s u b j e c t t o s e a s o n a l flooding a n d hydrologically connected to nearby Clackamas River through Lower Deep Creek, a year round creek

IBoth parties acknowledge that later policies included additional or amended language b u t

that the n e w language i s not relevant to the issues before the court.
Page 3- OPINION AND O R D E R

{SIB}

on the Property w h i c h is.a tributary o f the Clackamas River, and a series o f manmade storm water ditches and pipes. (Bery'amin CompI.
~

9.) H e alleges t h a t l e a d s h o t and clay p i g e o n debris

g e n e r a t e d b y D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s a c t i v i t i e s h a v e l a n d e d i n the " l a n d , w a t e r s a n d w e t l a n d s i n a n d a r o u n d t h e [ p r o p e r t y ] " a n d t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e h a s n o t t a k e n any a c t i o n t o " r e c o v e r , r e c l a i m o r r e u s e t h e l e a d s h o t . " ( B e n j a m i n CompI.
~

10.) Testing o f the soil at the Property shows the presence o f l e a d i n
~

excess o f 2 5 , 6 1 0 parts p e r million. (Benjamin CompI.

11.) B e n j a m i n a l l e g e s t h a t " t h i s l e a d h a s

m i g r a t e d i n t o t r i b u t a r i e s o f t h e C l a c k a m a s R i v e r , is m o v i n g v e r t i c a l l y d o w n w a r d s t o w a r d s t h e underlying aquifer, a n d poses anD imminent a n d substantial threat to h u m a n health and the e n v i r o n m e n t . " ( B e n j a m i n CompI.
~

11.) Benjamin complains that, despite this activity, Douglas

Ridge has failed to obtain a permit to operate a hazardous waste storage and disposal facility.
(Benjamin CompI. ~ 14.) Benjamin also asserts that " [ i ] n fall o f 2 0 0 6 , [Douglas Ridge] brought onto

t h e [ P ] r o p e r t y 3 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e y a r d s o f fill m a t e r i a l a n d p l a c e d t h e f i l l m a t e r i a l i n w e t l a n d s a n d c r e e k s t h a t are h y d r o l o g i c a l l y c o n n e c t e d t o t h e C l a c k a m a s R i v e r w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g a p e r m i t f r o m t h e O r e g o n D e p a r t m e n t o f State L a n d ' s . . . . " ( B e n j a m i n Compi.
~

15.)

B e n j a m i n ' s Second Claim for R e l i e f r e a l l e g e s a n d incorporates all o f the general allegations a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l e g e s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d R e c o v e r y A c t (the " A c t " ) . B e n j a m i n a s s e r t s t h a t , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f the A c t , t h e l e a d s h o t a n d l e a d c o n t a m i n a t e d l a n d o n t h e P r o p e r t y i s " h a z a r d o u s w a s t e " , D o u g l a s R i d g e is a " p e r s o n " , a n d t h e P r o p e r t y is a " f a c i l i t y " .
( B e n j a m i n CompI.
~~

2 7 , 28.) H e t h e n states t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e h a s s t o r e d a n d d i s p o s e d o f

hazardous waste o n the Property since 1958 and, ' ' t o this end,. [Douglas Ridge] has constructed, operates, a n d m a i n t a i n s d i r t p i l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d t o capture, s t o r e , a n d i m m o b i l i z e a b a n d o n e d a n d d i s c a r d e d l e a d . " ( B e n j a m i n CompI. ~ 2 9 . ) B e n j a m i n a l l e g e s t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e i s i n v i o l a t i o n P a g e 4- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R
{SIB}

ofnumerous standards applicable to hazardous treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n a p e n n i t , f a i l u r e t o t r e a t t h e w a s t e b e f o r e l a n d d i s p e r s a l , and:
a

Failure to develop a hazardous w a s t e training program for facility personnel. Failure t o o b t a i n E P A identification number. F a i l u r e to m a i n t a i n o p e r a t i o n s l o g d e t a i l i n g h a z a r d o u s w a s t e activities. F a i l u r e to d e v e l o p i n s p e c t i o n schedule. F a i l u r e t o m o n i t o r g r o u n d w a t e r n e a r site. F a i l u r e t o c o n t a i n n n i o f f a n d c o n t r o l w i n d d i s p e r s a l o f c o n t a m i n a t e d soil. Failure to develop unsaturated zone monitoring program t o detect vertical m i g r a t i o n o f waste. F a i l u r e t o i m p l e m e n t m e t h o d s to degrade, t r a n s f o r m , o r i m m o b i l i z e t h e l e a d w a s t e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e soil.

b. c. d. e. f. g.

h.

(Benjamin C o m p l . ~ ~ 3 0 - 3 2 ( c i t a t i o n s t o t h e C o d e o f F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . ) H e t h e n a s s e r t s
that: P l a i n t i f f is entitled to a n order u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 6 9 7 2 ( a ) ( I ) requiring defendant to a b a t e t h e v i o l a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e a n d e n j o i n i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e [Property] u n t i l d e f e n d a n t c o m e s into c o m p l i a n c e w i t h all applicable laws, regulations a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s g o v e r n i n g t h e g e n e r a t i o n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , t r e a t m e n t , storage, a n d d i s p e r s a l o f h a z a r d o u s waste.

(Benjamin C o m p l . ~ 3 4 . )
I n s u p p o r t o f his T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f for p u b l i c n u i s a n c e , B e n j a m i n a g a i n realleges a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s a l l o f t h e g e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s a s w e l l as t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e w e t l a n d s , d r a i n a g e d i t c h e s a n d creeks at t h e P r o p e r t y a r e w a t e r s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h e state o f O r e g o n specifically a l l e g e d i n paragraph 17 o f the Clean Water A c t claim a n d further alleges that Douglas R i d g e ' s placement o f fill material i n the wetlands and creeks a t the Property without first obtaining a p e n n i t as required

P a g e 5- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

by OR. REv. STAT. 1 9 6 . 8 2 5 , c o n s t i t u t e s a n u i s a n c e u n d e r OR. REv. STAT. 196.855. (Benjamin CompI. ~~ 3 7 , 3 8 . ) B e n j a m i n seeks a n o r d e r u n d e r OR. REv. STAT. 1 9 6 . 8 7 0 r e q u i r i n g D o u g l a s R i d g e to r e m o v e t h e fill m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e w e t l a n d s a n d c r e e k s a t t h e P r o p e r t y . (Benjamin C o m p i .
~

39.) D o u g l a s R i d g e t e n d e r e d t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t t o St. P a u l f o r d e f e n s e a n d i n d e m n i t y u n d e r

the t e r m s o f t h e Policy. ( C h e n o w e t h Decl. E x h . 5.) Originally, St. P a u l i n d i c a t e d t h a t it h a d insufficient i n f o r m a t i o n u p o n w h i c h to b a s e i s c o v e r a g e d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d requested additional information. ( C h e n o w e t h D e c l . Exh. 6.) A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a n d r e v i e w i n g t h e r e q u e s t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , St. P a u l r e j e c t e d t h e t e n d e r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t i t had n o o b l i g a t i o n t o d e f e n d a n d / o r i n d e m n i f y D o u g l a s Ridge. ( C h e n o w e t h Decl. E x h . 9 . ) D o u g l a s R i d g e f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n for b r e a c h o f i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t St. P a u l h a s a d u t y t o d e f e n d D o u g l a s R i d g e a n d t h e r e c o v e r y o f reasonable attorney fees a n d d e f e n s e c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y D o u g l a s Ridge.

Legal Standard
S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is appropriate " i f t h e pleadings, t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d d i s c l o s u r e materials o n file, a n d a n y a f f i d a v i t s s h o w t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n y m a t e r i a l fact a n d t h a t t h e m o v a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " FED. R. e l V . P. 5 6 ( c ) (2008). S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is n o t p r o p e r i f material factual i s s u e s e x i s t for trial. Warren v. City o fCarlsbad, 58 F J d 4 3 9 , 4 4 1 ( 9 t h Cir. 1995). T h e m o v i n g p a r t y has the b u r d e n o f establishing t h e absence o f a genuine issue o f material fact, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 7 7 U . S . 317, 323 (1986). I ft h e m o v i n g p a r t y s h o w s t h e a b s e n c e o f a g e n u i n e i s s u e o fm a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y m u s t g o b e y o n d t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d i d e n t i f y f a c t s w h i c h s h o w a g e n u i n e i s s u e for trial. Id. a t 324. A n o n m o v i n g p a r t y c a n n o t defeat s u m m a r y

P a g e 6- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

judgment b y relying o n t h e allegations i n t h e complaint, or w i t h unsupported conjecture o r conclusory statements. Hernandezv. Space/abs Medical, Inc., 343 F . 3 d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, summary j u d g m e n t should b e e n t e r e d against " a party w h o fails to m a k e a s h o w i n g sufficient to establish t h e existence o f a n e l e m e n t essential to that p a r t y ' s case, a n d o n w h i c h t h a t p a r t y will b e a r t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f a t t r i a l . " Ce/otex, 4 7 7 U . S . a t 3 2 2 . T h e c o u r t m u s t v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g party. B e l l v. Cameron Meadows L a n d Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable d o u b t a s to t h e existence o f a genuine issue o f fact s h o u l d b e resolved against t h e m o v i n g party. Hector v.

Wiens, 533 F . 2 d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976). Where different u l t i m a t e inferences m a y b e drawn,
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is inappropriate. Sankovich v. Life Ins. Co. o fNorth A merica, 638 F . 2 d 136, 140

( 9 t h Cir. 1981).
H o w e v e r , deference t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y h a s limits. T h e n o n m o v i n g party m u s t s e t forth "specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIY. P. 5 6 (e) (2008) (emphasis added). T h e " m e r e existence o f a scintilla o f evidence i n s u p p o r t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n [is] insufficient."

A n d e r s o n v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Therefore, w h e r e " t h e record t a k e n as
a w h o l e c o u l d n o t l e a d a r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c t t o f i n d f o r t h e n o n m o v i n g party, t h e r e is n o g e n u i n e issue for trial ." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., L t d v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (1986) (internal quotations m a r k s omitted).

Discussion
A n i n s u r e r ' s duty t o defend its insured is distinguishable from a n d i s b r o a d e r than its duty

t o i n d e m n i f y u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f a n i n s u r a n c e policy. W h i l e t h e duty t o i n d e m n i f y is b a s e d o n facts p r o v e n a t t r i a l w h i c h s u p p o r t a f m d i n g o f liability, t h e d u t y to d e f e n d i s d e t e r m i n e d s o l e l y b y t h e

P a g e 7- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

factual allegations o f the complaint and the language o f the insurance policy. Fireman's F u n d Inc.

Co. v. E d Niemi Oil Co., Inc., No. C V 03-25-MO, 2005 W L 3050460, a t *1 (D. Or. Nov. 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) .
A n insurer has a duty to defend an insured only i f the allegations o f t h e complaint i n the

u n d e r l y i n g action, w i t h o u t a m e n d m e n t a n d w i t h a m b i g u i t i e s c o n s t r u e d i n f a v o r o f t h e i n s u r e d , c o u l d impose liability for conduct covered by the policy. Marleau v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 333 Or. 8 2 , 9 1

(2001); W Equities, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire a n d Marine Ins. Co., 184 Or. App. 3 6 8 , 3 7 1 (2002). The
duty arises whenever there is a possibility t h a t the policy provides coverage. Thus, i f a complaint c o n t a i n s e v e n o n e c l a i m t h a t c o u l d i m p o s e l i a b i l i t y f o r c o n d u c t c o v e r e d by t h e p o l i c y , t h e i n s u r e r h a s a duty to defend. Id. a t 91; see also Abrams v. General Star Indem. Co., 335 Or. 392, 399-400 (2003). T h e i n s u r e d b e a r s the b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e t e r m s o f t h e p o l i c y c o u l d p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e for its claims. Lewis v. Aetna Ins. Co., 264 Or. 314, 316 (1973). However, " [ a ] n y ambiguity i n the c o m p l a i n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h e t h e r t h e allegations c o u l d b e c o v e r e d i s r e s o l v e d i n favor o f the i n s u r e d . " L e d f o r d v . Gutoski, 3 1 9 O r . 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . S i m i l a r l y , i f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e i n s u r a n c e policy is susceptible to more t h a n one interpretation, " t h e policy is construed m o s t favorably to the insured."

Sch. Dist. N o . 1 , Multnomah County v~ Mission Ins. Co., 58 Or. App. 692, 697

(1982)("Mission").
D o u g l a s R i d g e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n B e n j a m i n ' s S e c o n d C l a i m for R e l i e f a s s e r t i n g violations o f t h e Act, a n d B e n j a m i n ' s T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f for Public Nuisance, fall within the terms o f the Policy a n d trigger a duty to defend. St. Paul disagrees, arguing t h a t coverage does n o t exist under either c l a i m because damages, i f any, sought u n d e r t h e claims are n o t "because o f ' or " o n account o f ' damage to third-party property a n d t h e injury t o t h e third-party property was n o t the

Page 8- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

result o f a n accident. 2 St. Paul also asserts t h a t B e n j a m i n is n o t seeking covered damages u n d e r t h e S e c o n d C l a i m for R e l i e f and t h a t t h e allegations relevant to t h e T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f fall outside o f t h e r e l e v a n t p o l i c y period.

A. Second C l a i m for R e l i e f - Violations o f the A c t
1. Damages. S1. Paul argues that the remedies B e n j a m i n seeks i n his claim for violations o f the A c t - a n o r d e r requiring D o u g l a s Ridge t o abate the violations o f t h e A c t a n d enjoining the operation o f t h e P r o p e r t y u n t i l D o u g l a s R i d g e c o m p l i e s w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Act, a n d a t t o r n e y fees a n d c o s t s - are n o t p r o p e r t y damages c o v e r e d b y t h e t e r m s o f t h e Policy. D o u g l a s R i d g e concedes t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g D o u g l a s R i d g e f r o m o p e r a t i n g u n t i l i t c o m p l i e s w i t h t h e Act, as w e l l a s t h e a t t o r n e y fees a n d c o s t s , a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d d a m a g e s u n d e r t h e P o l i c y . H o w e v e r , D o u g l a s R i d g e argues t h a t a c o u r t o r d e r directing Douglas R i d g e to abate t h e v i o l a t i o n s c o u l d t a k e the f o r m o f a m a n d a t o r y i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g D o u g l a s R i d g e to i n c u r e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a n u p c o s t s w h i c h do q u a l i f y as d a m a g e s . T h e A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t t h i s c o u r t s h a l l h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c i t i z e n s u i t s b r o u g h t u n d e r the A c t to r e s t r a i n any p e r s o n who has v i o l a t e d t h e A c t a n d " t o o r d e r s u c h p e r s o n s t o t a k e s u c h o t h e r a c t i o n as m a y b e necessary, o r b o t h . . . . " 42 U.S.Co § 6 9 7 2 ( a ) (2007). Various federal courts have read t h i s l a n g u a g e t o a u t h o r i z e a f e d e r a l c o u r t t o o r d e r a p a r t y t o c l e a n u p a c o n t a m i n a t e d site. M e g h r i g v. K F C Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 4 7 9 , 4 8 4 (1996)("Under a p l a i n reading o f this remedial scheme, a

2St. P a u l concedes t h a t t h e Benjamin C o m p l a i n t qualifies a s a " s u i t " u n d e r t h e terms o f t h e Policy, t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a r i s e o u t o f " h a z a r d s " as d e f i n e d i n t h e P o l i c y , a n d t h a t t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t alleges t h a t t h e " w e t l a n d s , drainage ditches, a n d c r e e k s " a t t h e P r o p e r t y a r e " w a t e r s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s " a n d t h e State o f Oregon. ( D e f . ' s C o m b i n e d Mem. a t 9-10.) Page 9- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

private citizen s u i n g under § 6972(a)(1 )(B) c o u l d seek a mandatory injunction, i. e., o n e that orders a responsible party t o ' t a k e a c t i o n ' b y attending t o the cleanup a n d p r o p e r d i s p o s a l o f t o x i c waste

. . . . "); Interfaith Comty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 399 F . 3 d 248, 264-68 (3rd C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( T h i r d
Circuit u p h e l d district c o u r t ' s mandatory injunction requiring defendant to c l e a n up its site t h r o u g h e x c a v a t i o n and r e m o v a l o f t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d w a s t e finding that it w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n a t i o n a l p o l i c y t o " m i n i m i z e t h e p r e s e n t and future t h r e a t t o h u m a n h e a l t h a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t " established b y t h e Act); College P a r k Holdings, LLC, v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 2 3 9 F. Supp. 2 d 1334, 13495 0 (N.D. Ga. 2002)(court granted injunctive r e l i e f requiring defendant to engage i n testing, prepare a corrective action p l a n a n d remediate t h e contamination i n t h e property a n d groundwater); Wilson v. A m o c o Corp. 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1171-72 (D. Wyo. 1998)(court i s s u e d mandatory injunction r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o e r e c t b a r r i e r s a n d d e v e l o p t e s t i n g p l a n s u n d e r the b r o a d e q u i t a b l e p o w e r s given t h e c o u r t under the Act); West/arm Associates Ltd. P 'ship v. I n t ' i Fabricare Inst., 22 Envtl.

1 . Rep. 21,350 (D. Md. 1992)(court found that i t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n to enforce t h e provisions o f the A c t
t o the full e x t e n t o f its legal a n d equitable powers, w h i c h could include a n o r d e r to clean up t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d land). B o t h the N i n t h C i r c u i t a n d t h e O r e g o n c o u r t s r e c o g n i z e t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l cleaIlUp costs qualify as property damages as defined i n m o s t insurance policies. P o r t o fP o r t l a n d v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate, 796 F . 2 d 1188, 1194 ( 9 t h Cir. 1 9 8 6 ) ( " W e agree w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t court t h a t the "reasonable, enlightened v i e w " t h a t t h e O r e g o n Supreme C o u r t w o u l d a d o p t w o u l d b e t h a t t h e discharge o f p o l l u t i o n into w a t e r causes d a m a g e t o t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y a n d hence c l e a n u p costs are recoverable u n d e r a property d a m a g e clause."); Lane Elec. Coop. Inc. v. Federated R u r a l Elec.

Ins. Corp., 114 Or. App. 156, 160-61 (1992)("Ground water is tangible property. W h e n i t is
contaminated, its quality is injured physically and is " d a m a g e d . " W e h o l d that, under t h e p l a i n

P a g e 10- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

meaning o f d e f e n d a n t ' s policy, the contamination o f ground water was "property damage.") The duty to defend arises w h e n there is a possibility t h a t a c l a i m m a y be covered b y the insurance policy. Under the Act, the district court has t h e authority to o r d e r Douglas Ridge t o clean u p o r r e m e d i a t e a n y c o n t a m i n a t i o n for w h i c h i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e . B e n j a m i n a l l e g e s t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s actions h a v e c o n t a m i n a t e d t h e land, waters, a n d w e t l a n d s i n a n d a r o u n d t h e P r o p e r t y and are c u r r e n t l y a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g B e n j a m i n ' s a b i l i t y t o u s e a n d e n j o y t h e C l a c k a m a s R i v e r , a n d t h a t the contamination o f the groundwater poses an imminent and substantial threat to h w n a n health and e n v i r o n m e n t . I n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e A c t i s i n t e n d e d t o m i n i m i z e b o t h p r e s e n t a n d future t h r e a t to h w n a n health, the court fInds i t possible t h a t the district court will o r d e r Douglas Ridge t o take a c t i o n t o c l e a n u p t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t B e n j a m i n ' s c l a i m for v i o l a t i o n o f t h e A c t w i l l c a u s e D o u g l a s R i d g e t o i n c u r c l e a n u p c o s t s , w h i c h c o s t s q u a l i f y as p r o p e r t y d a m a g e u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e Policy. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d b y B e n j a m i n ' s s p e c i l l c r e q u e s t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g D o u g l a s R i d g e t o a b a t e t h e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e Act. T h e t e r m " a b a t e " m e a n s " t o reduce in amount, degree, o r intensity; lessen." The A m e r i c a n Heritage D i c t i o n a r y o f E n g l i s h
L a n g u a g e 2 (4th ed. 2000). While 8t. Paul argues t h a t Benjamin i s asking the district c o u r t t o

require Douglas Ridge to abate the violations, i. e., obtain the necessary permit and identifIcation number, maintain logs, develop a training program, all o f w h i c h is prospective relief, i t could also be interpreted as a request that the district court require Douglas Ridge to abate the contamination. V i e w i n g t h e allegations o f t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t i n f a v o r o f t h e insured, t h e c o u r t fmds t h a t B e n j a m i n c o u l d b e s e e k i n g r e m e d i a t i o n o f t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d soil a n d w a t e r l o c a t e d o n t h e P r o p e r t y , which, i f o r d e r e d , w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t i t u t e p r o p e r t y d a m a g e i n t h e f o r m o f c l e a n u p c o s t s c o v e r e d

Page 11- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

by t h e Policy. 2. Third Party Property. St. Paul argues t h a t even i f t h e court finds that the allegations o f the Benjamin C o m p l a i n t could result i n property damage covered b y the Policy, such damage is l i m i t e d to property owned, occupied by o r rented t o Douglas Ridge, and is, therefore, excluded u n d e r the express terms o f the Policy. St. Paul asserts t h a t the S e c o n d C l a i m for R e l i e f is b a s e d solely o n Douglas R i d g e ' s u s e o f t h e Property, w h i c h i t o w n s , as a h a z a r d o u s w a s t e facility i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Act. D o u g l a s R i d g e c o n t e n d s t h a t B e n j a m i n ' s a l l e g a t i o n s s u p p o r t i n g h i s c l a i m u n d e r t h e A c t are b a s e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , o n D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f third-party property, n a m e l y t h e wetlands, drainage ditches, a n d c r e e k located o n the Property, w h i c h are tributaries o f the Clackamas R i v e r a n d b e l o n g to the public. B e n j a m i n i n c o r p o r a t e s b y reference into h i s S e c o n d C l a i m for R e l i e f a n w n b e r o f allegations r e l a t i n g to t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t h e w a t e r a n d w e t l a n d s a t a n d a r o u n d t h e Property. Specifically, h e i n c o r p o r a t e s h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s v i o l a t i o n o f the A c t h a s a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i s " a b i l i t y t o u s e a n d e n j o y t h e C l a c k a m a s R i v e r f o r s w i m m i n g , f i s h i n g a n d h u n t i n g . " (Benjamin C o m p I . , 6.) A d d i t i o n a l l y , h e i n c o r p o r a t e s h i s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t l e a d s h o t h a s l a n d e d i n the w a t e r s a n d w e t l a n d located o n t h e Property, has migrated into the tributaries o f t h e Clackamas River, is m o v i n g vertically d o w n w a r d s t o w a r d s t h e underlying aquifer, a n d p o s e s a n i m m i n e n t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t to h u m a n h e a l t h a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . (Benjamin Compi. " 10, 11.) B e n j a m i n also alleges

v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e A c t r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o w a t e r , i n c l u d i n g failure t o m o n i t o r g r o u n d w a t e r n e a r t h e s i t e a n d failure to d e v e l o p a n u n s a t u r a t e d z o n e m o n j t o r i n g p r o g r a m t o d e t e c t v e r t i c a l m i g r a t i o n o f waste. (Benjamin Compi. , 31.) It is clear t h a t B e n j a m i n h a s alleged contamination o f water,

P a g e 12- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

wetlands, and tributaries in support o f his claim under the Act. A number o f courts have h e l d that similar statements adequately allege damage to third-party property supporting a finding o f either a duty to defend or insurance coverage. In GE Prop. & Cas.

Ins. Co. v. Portland Comty. ColI., No. CV 04-727-HU, 2005 WL 2044315, a t *6 (D. Or. Aug. 24,
2 0 0 5 ) , J u d g e R u b e l o f t h i s c o u r t f o u n d t h a t r e f e r e n c e s . t o the p o s s i b i l i t y o f g r o u n d w a t e r contamination, i n a d d i t i o n t o soil c o n t a m i n a t i o n , w e r e sufficient allegations o f d a m a g e t o t h i r d - p a r t y property to trigger a duty to defend. Similarly, in Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ed Niemi Oil Co., Inc., No. C V 03-25-MO, 2005 WL 3050460, at *8 (D. Or. Nov. 9, 2005), Judge
Mo~man

found t h a t

" w h e r e there are allegations o f possible damage to the groundwater o r other publicly owned water s o u r c e s , t h e o w n e d - p r o p e r t y e x c l u s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y . " A n O r e g o n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t h a s also h e l d t h a t c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r a d e q u a t e l y alleges d a m a g e t o a t h i r d - p a r t y property, relying o n s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s t h a t all w a t e r w i t h i n t h e s t a t e o f O r e g o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l s u c h water, belongs to the public. Lane Elec., 114 Or. App. at 161. B e n j a m i n ' s allegations go far beyond a reference to a possibility o f groundwater contamination. B e n j a m i n specifically a l l e g e s t h a t D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e A c t h a v e a f f e c t e d h i s a b i l i t y to u s e a n d e n j o y t h e C l a c k a m a s R i v e r , t h a t t h e l e a d s h o t h a s c o n t a m i n a t e d w a t e r a n d is moving towards t h e underlying aquifer, a n d that Douglas Ridge h a s violated the A c t by failing to a d e q u a t e l y m o n i t o r t h e e f f e c t o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f l e a d s h o t o n t h e g r o u n d w a t e r n e a r t h e P r o p e r t y . T h e w a t e r a n d w e t l a n d s l o c a t e d o n t h e P r o p e r t y , a n d a l l e g e d l y c o n t a m i n a t e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e l e a d s h o t a b a n d o n e d o n the P r o p e r t y , a r e o w n e d b y t h e p u b l i c , n o t D o u g l a s R i d g e . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t court will c o n s i d e r t h e a l l e g e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f the w a t e r a n d w e t l a n d s t o b e r e l e v a n t t o B e n j a m i n ' s c l a i m s u n d e r t h e A c t , t h e p u r p o s e o f w h i c h is t o m i n i m i z e t h e p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e t h r e a t

P a g e 13- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

to h u m a n health and the environment. Accordingly, any cleanup costs incurred by Douglas Ridge as a result o f the alleged violations o f the Act could, a t least in part, be attributable to the current or i m m i n e n t c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f water, w e t l a n d s , a n d g r o u n d w a t e r . I n t h a t s c e n a r i o , t h i s c l a i m w o u l d n o t be excluded as damage t o property owned, occupied by, o r rented t o Douglas Ridge. 3. Accident. Coverage under the Policy is limited to damages caused by accident. St. Paul argues that because Douglas Ridge intended its members to shoot lead shot onto the Property, the resulting contamination m u s t b e considered intentional, rather than accidental. Alternatively, St. Paul argues t h a t e v e n i f D o u g l a s Ridge d i d n o t i n t e n d t o contaminate t h e P r o p e r t y a n d w a t e r o r wetlands located thereon, such contamination was so certain t o occur t h a t Douglas Ridge should b e deemed t o have intended it. The duty to defend is governed solely b y the allegations o f the complaint. W h e n considering t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e c o u r t m u s t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t n o t o n l y all o f t h e c l a i m s s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l e g e d , b u t also a l l claims t h a t c o u l d b e s u p p o r t e d b y the allegations. I n cases involving allegations o f

i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t , t h e c o u r t w i l l f i n d the d u t y t o d e f e n d e x i s t s i f e v i d e n c e o f a c c i d e n t a l c o n d u c t . w o u l d also b e a d m i s s i b l e a n d w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e u n d e r l y i n g claim. T h e O r e g o n Supreme C o u r t h a s specifically addressed t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a n i n s u r e r has " a duty to defend a n i n s u r e d under a n insurance policy w i t h a n ' i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s ' exclusion i f the c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t the i n s u r e d a l l e g e s a s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t t o h a r m b u t t h e c l a i m c o u l d b e p r o v e n though unintentional conduct" o n certification from the N i n t h Circuit i n A b r a m s v. General S t a r

Indem. Co., 335 Or. 3 9 2 , 3 9 4 (2003). I n A brams, the underlying complaint stated a conversion claim
s u p p o r t e d b y allegations o f intent t o cause harm. T h e state c o u r t acknowledged t h a t existing case

Page 14- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

law clearly established t h a t " a n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y w i t h a n intentional a c t s e x c l u s i o n d o e s n o t p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e f o r a c t s d o n e w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t to c a u s e h a r m . " ld. I t r e v i e w e d o t h e r O r e g o n c a s e s addressing the issue, s u c h a s Ferguson v. Birmingham Fire Ins., 254 Or. 496, 5 0 7 (1969), i n w h i c h the c o u r t h e l d t h a t a n a c t i o n for t r e s p a s s a l l e g i n g a w i l l f u l e n t r y t o s u p p o r t a p u n i t i v e d a m a g e c l a i m c o u l d also s u p p o r t a " l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e " o f non-willful entry for o r d i n a r y d a m a g e s t h u s
tri~gering t h e

duty to defend, and L e d f o r d v. Gutosld, 3 1 9 Or. 397, 402-03 (1994), where the c o u r t

f o u n d t h a t a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d o n l y i n t e n t i o n a l acts a n d h a r m a n d d i d n o t obligate the i n s u r e r to d e f e n d the lawsuit. T h e c o u r t ultimately c r e a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d to a n s w e r t h e d u t y t o d e f e n d q u e s t i o n w h e n t h e c o m p l a i n t alleges c o n d u c t that i s e x c l u d e d u n d e r t h e i n s u r a n c e policy: First, t h e c o u r t m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s a l l e g a t i o n s o f c o v e r e d c o n d u c t . I f i t d o e s , a s t h e t r e s p a s s c o m p l a i n t d i d i n Ferguson, t h e n t h e i n s u r e r h a s a d u t y to defend, e v e n l i t h e c o m p l a i n t a l s o includes allegations o f e x c l u d e d conduct. I ft h e c o m p l a i n t does n o t c o n t a i n allegations o f c o v e r e d conduct, as w a s the c a s e w i t h t h e m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c o m p l a i n t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i n Ledford, t h e n t h e i n s u r e r h a s n o d u t y t o defend.

ld. a t 4 0 0 . T h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e i n t e n t i o n a l c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m also
i n c l u d e d allegations o f ordinary conversion, w h i c h w a s c o v e r e d u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e insurance p o l i c y a t issue, t h e i n s u r e r had a duty t o defend. ld. T h i s s t a n d a r d i s further supported b y the r e a s o n i n g o f t h e O r e g o n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i n Mission, w h e r e i n t h e c o u r t d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n a n e m p l o y m e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m b a s e d o n d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t , i n w h i c h p r o o f o f cliscriminatory m o t i v e i s critical, a n d a c l a i m b a s e d o n d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t , w h i c h m a y b e b a s e d o n facially n e u t r a l e m p l o y m e n t p r a c t i c e s t h a t t r e a t a g r o u p o f p r o t e c t e d e m p l o y e e s m o r e h a r s h l y b u t do n o t r e q u i r e d a discriminatory motive. T h e court f o u n d t h a t t h e former c l a i m d i d n o t trigger t h e d u t y t o d e f e n d

Page 15- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

while the latter did. Mission, 58 Or. App. at 701. First, t h e c o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t contains no allegations o f i n t e n t i o n a l conduct or subjective intent to cause harm. Benjamin only alleges that lead h a s been discharged, disposed of, and abandoned on the Property a n d that engaging i n such conduct without a permit and

i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s p e c i f i e d s t a n d a r d s v i o l a t e s t h e Act. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t o n
its face does not allege an intent to h a r m a n d does not restrict Douglas R i d g e ' s possible liability to intentional acts. Second, even assuming that the Benjamin Complaint does allege intentional c o n d u c t , B e n j a m i n ' s c l a i m for v i o l a t i o n o f t h e A c t w o u l d b e e q u a l l y s u p p o r t e d b y u n i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t . T h e A c t d o e s n o t l i m i t c o n d u c t a c t i o n a b l e u n d e r i t s p r o v i s i o n s to i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t . Accordingly, the claim sufficiently alleges accidental conduct covered by the terms o f the Policy. T h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t B e n j a m i n ' s c l a i m for v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e A c t , v i e w i n g a n y a m b i g u i t i e s i n the B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t o r t h e P o l i c y i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o D o u g l a s R i d g e , c o u l d s u p p o r t a c l a i m f o r d a m a g e to t h i r d - p a r t y p r o p e r t y b a s e d o n t h e a c c i d e n t a l , o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l , c o n d u c t o f Douglas Ridge. St. P a u l ' s duty to d e f e n d Douglas Ridge is triggered by the allegations o f the Benjamin Complaint as set forth i n the Second Claim for Relief.

B. . Third Claim for R e l i e f - Public Nuisance
1. Allegations Supporting Placement o f F i l l Material o n Property. D o u g l a s R i d g e a s s e r t s t h a t St. P a u l h a s a d u t y t o d e f e n d i t b a s e d o n B e n j a m i n ' s T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f for public nuisance. St. Paul argues that the public nuisance claim is based solely o n the delivery and spreading o f 3,000 square yards o f fill material o n the Property in the fall o f 2006. Because Douglas Ridge no longer insured the Property through St. Paul after 1980, the 2006 event would fall outside t h e coverage period. Douglas Ridge contends t h e allegations o f discharge,

P a g e 16- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

(SIB)

disposal a n d a b a n d o n m e n t o f b o t h lead s h o t a n d clay p i g e o n debris o n t h e Property during the c o v e r a g e p e r i o d , i n c o r p o r a t e d b y r e f e r e n c e i n t o t h e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i m , also s u p p o r t t h e c l a i m a n d c r e a t e s c o v e r a g e u n d e r t h e Policy. I n h i s T h i r d C l a i m f o r R e l i e f f o r p u b l i c n u i s a n c e , B e n j a m i n i n c o r p o r a t e s all o f the g e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s w h i c h i n c l u d e a s s e r t i o n s t h a t o v e r t h e years, D o u g l a s R i d g e h a s d i s c h a r g e d , d i s p o s e d o f a n d a b a n d o n e d l e a d a n d c l a y p i g e o n d e b r i s i n w a t e r a n d w e t l a n d s i n a n d a r o u n d t h e Property, a n d t h a t i n t h e f a l l o f 2 0 0 6 , D o u g l a s R i d g e b r o u g h t fill m a t e r i a l o n t o t h e P r o p e r t y a n d p l a c e d i t i n t h e w a t e r a n d w e t l a n d s . ( B e n j a m i n CompI.
~~

1, 10, 15.) B e n j a m i n t h e n specifically alleges t h a t

D o u g l a s R i d g e h a s p l a c e d fill m a t e r i a l i n t h e w e t l a n d s a n d c r e e k s o n t h e P r o p e r t y w i t h o u t p e r m i t i n v i o l a t i o n o f OR. REv. STAT. 196.855. B e n j a m i n asks the district c o u r t t o o r d e r Douglas R i d g e to r e m o v e t h e fill m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e P r o p e r t y . T h e c o u r t agrees t h a t t h e logical s u p p o r t for t h e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i m a r e t h o s e allegations found i n paragraph 15, w h i c h relate t o Douglas R i d g e ' s p l a c e m e n t o f f i l l material in t h e w a t e r a n d wetlands i n t h e fall o f 2006. However, t h e court i s n o t to l i m i t the allegations o f the- underlying c o m p l a i n t t o t h o s e t h a t are m o s t l o g i c a l o r r e a s o n a b l e . I n s t e a d , t h e c o u r t m u s t v i e w t h e B e n j a m i n Comp laint as stating a claim u n d e r all possible scenarios. I f t h e allegations t h a t D o u g l a s Ridge discharged, d i s p o s e d o f a n d a b a n d o n e d l e a d a n d c l a y p i g e o n debris i n t h e w e t l a n d a n d waters o f t h e P r o p e r t y may s u p p o r t a c l a i m for p u b l i c nuisance, t h e c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e Benjamin C o m p l a i n t as s t a t i n g s u c h a c l a i m f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f d e t e n n i n i n g t h e duty to defend. U n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e , a p a r t y is l i a b l e for a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e w h e n i t r e m o v e s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e b e d s o r b a n k s o r fIlls a n y w a t e r s o f t h e s t a t e w i t h o u t a p e r m i t o r c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s set out i n t h e p e n n i t or a wetland conservation plan. OR. REv. STAT. 196.855 (2007). " F i l l " i s

Page 17- OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

defmed as the "total o f deposits b y artificial m e a n s equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards or m o r e o f material at one location i n any waters o f this state." OR. REv. STAT. 196.800(3) (2007). The t e n n " m a t e r i a l " m e a n s " r o c k , gravel, sand, s i l t a n d o t h e r i n o r g a n i c s u b s t a n c e r e m o v e d f r o i n w a t e r s o f t h i s state a n d any materials, organic or inorganic, u s e d to fill waters o f this state." OR. REv. STAT. 1 9 6 . 8 0 0 ( 7 ) ( 2 0 0 7 ) . B o t h t h e l e a d s h o t a n d t h e c l a y p i g e o n d e b r i s c o u l d fall w i t h i n t h e d e f m i t i o n o f material. W h i l e t h e B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y allege t h e a m o u n t o f l e a d s h o t o r c l a y p i g e o n d e b r i s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e w a t e r s o r w e t l ~ d s l o c a t e d on t h e P r o p e r t y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t m o r e t h a n 5 0 c u b i c years h a v e b e e n d e p o s i t e d o n t h e P r o p e r t y a n d its w e t l a n d s o v e r t h e m o r e t h a n 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d St. P a u l w a s i n s u r i n g t h e P r o p e r t y . T h e T h i r d C l a i m for R e l i e f i n the B e n j a m i n C o m p l a i n t c a n b e c o n s t r u e d t o assert a c l a i m for public nuisance u n d e r OR. REv. STAT. 196.855 based o n the deposit o f l e a d s h o t and c l a y p i g e o n d e b r i s i n t h e w a t e r s a n d w e t l a n d s l o c a t e d o n the Property. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t s u c h a c l a i m i s a l l e g e d a n d t r i g g e r s a d u t y t o d e f e n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g action. 2. T h i r d Party P r o p e r t y Damage. A s w i t h t h e S e c o n d C l a i m for Relief, St. P a u l asserts t h a t any damages incurred b y Douglas R i d g e u n d e r the p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i m a r e n o t b e c a u s e o f a n i n j u r y t o
third~party p r o p e r t y .

The

p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i m d o e s n o t lie i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a c t i o n s a f f e c t i n g w a t e r s o f t h e s t a t e . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t a t u t e s r e l e v a n t t o t h e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e c l a i m is the " p r o t e c t i o n , c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d b e s t u s e o f t h e w a t e r r e s o u r c e s o f t h i s s t a t e " a n d t h e c o n c e r n t h a t " [u ] n r e g u l a t e d f i l l i n g i n t h e w a t e r s o f t h i s state for a n y p u r p o s e , m a y r e s u l t i n t h e i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h o r i n j u r i n g p u b l i c n a v i g a t i o n , fishery a n d recreational uses o f t h e w a t e r . " OR. REv. STAT. 196.805(1). A n o r d e r to r e m o v e the material d e p o s i t e d i n t h e w a t e r and wetlands o n the P r o p e r t y w o u l d c a u s e D o u g l a s R i d g e to i n c u r costs t o

P a g e 18- O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

remedy existing o r possible injury to the waterways and the use o f the waterways by the public, as well as to habitats and spawning areas for fish. The court flllds n o reasons to treat these damages any differently t h a n costs incurred to remedy possible contamination to the same waterways. The
Benjamin Complaint asserts a claim for damages to third-party property in the Third Claim for R e l i e f

for p u b l i c nuisance. 3. Accident. The Benjamin Complaint alleges that Douglas Ridge placed fill material o n the Property. Based o n these allegations, St. Paul argues t h a t Douglas R i d g e ' s "placement" o f f i l l material i n the water and :wetlands o f the Property is an intentional act which is excluded under t h e terms o f the P o l i c y . T h e a l l e g a t i o n s r e l e v a n t to t h e d i s p o s a l o f l e a d s h o t a n d c l a y p i g e o n d o e s n o t i n c l u d e c l a i m s o f intentional conduct. Douglas Ridge could b e held liable for removal costs under the statutes w h e t h e r i t intentionally o r negligently deposited fill material i n the water or wetlands o n t h e Property. T h e allegations i n the Third C l a i m for R e l i e f for public nuisance support a claim based o n b o t h n e g l i g e n t a n d i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t , t h e r e b y t r i g g e r i n g t h e d u t y t o d e f e n d a n t u n d e r t h e Policy.
Conclusion

Douglas R i d g e ' s motion (#31) for partial summary j u d g m e n t is GRANTED. St. Paul, as D o u g l a s R i d g e ' s l i a b i l i t y insurer, h a s a d u t y t o d e f e n d D o u g l a s R i d g e a g a i n s t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y Benjamin i n the case o f Benjamin v. D o u g l a s Ridge Rifle Club, No. 3:07-CV-1144-HA (D. Or.

-

II/II
/ II II / II II I II II
Page 19- OPINION AND O R D E R
{SIB}

2007), from the date o f tender beginning August 7 , 2 0 0 7 . 81. P a u l ' s motion (#37) for summary judgment is DENIED. DATED this 8th day o f January, 2010.

V.ACOSTA t tes M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

Page 20- OPINION AND O R D E R

{SIB}