Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)

Four Gateway Center
444 Liberty Avenue
Suite 1105
Pittsburgh,
PA 15222-1220

Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email

Print This Page

Practice Areas

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Environmental Law Practice

Environmental law has been a hallmark of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. since its inception. Attorney Miller heads the firm’s Environmental law practice, where both he and Attorney Picadio each have over 23 years experience representing a wide range of clients, including industrial concerns, municipalities and individuals, navigating the complex web of state and federal statutes and regulations, local ordinances, and case law governing solid waste, hazardous waste, water pollution, clean air, storage tanks, wetlands and real estate development.

At Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., our attorneys assist clients in obtaining required permits and complying with regulations and auditing principles, advise them on hazardous waste, municipal and residual waste, hazardous substance cleanup and Superfund matters, and effluent and air emissions issues. Contact our environmental lawyers today for legal assistance.

Negotiation or Litigation Involving Environmental Issues

Our firm provides comprehensive environmental law representation of organizations and individuals involved with litigation concerning the regulation of air pollution, water pollution, solid and hazardous wastes, leaking underground storage tanks, coal mining and contaminated sites. We also assist clients in negotiating real estate transactions involving contaminated and recycled industrial sites, utilizing the state’s land recycling statutes and regulations to achieve results. Our representation has included the following matters:

Representing a remediation contractor in a multi-party, multi-faceted litigation arising from a fly ash land slide that impacted a residential neighborhood.
Representing a waste and recycled oil recovery transporter in superfund litigation arising out of the cleanup of a waste oil recovery facility.
The representation of a waste disposal company in various regulatory and permitting matters, including litigation arising out of permitting and civil penalty actions.
The representation of a major chemical manufacturer concerning several hazardous disposal sites where its waste was disposed by a transporter.
The representation of a municipal water company in an action against the owners and operators of several industrial facilities located near the water company's water supply wells for damages caused by groundwater contamination by industrial solvents.
The representation of a generator of listed hazardous wastes in an action brought by the owner of the disposal company which accepted them for delivery to and disposal at the disposal company's landfill. The action, which was brought under the federal and state superfund laws as well as Pennsylvania common law, sought several million dollars in the estimated costs involved in closing the landfill in compliance with Pennsylvania hazardous waste disposal area regulations.
The representation of a hazardous waste disposal company which transported industrial wastes to a municipal landfill, in an action brought by the United States Environmental Protection Agency seeking to compel generators and transporters of industrial wastes to finance the estimated $50 million closure of the landfill.
The representation of a municipal operator of a sewage collection and treatment system in multifaceted litigation arising out of the alleged contamination of farm land from cadmium contained in sewage sludge used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner on the land.
The representation of a coal mining company in an appeal of a compliance order directing the treatment or abatement of a large polluting groundwater discharge emanating from the ground approximately 200 yards off the mine site.
The representation of a large real estate development company in an action against the state environmental protection agency and a local municipality challenging a construction ban imposed by DER as a result of the municipality's failure to enact a sewage facilities plan acceptable to DER.
The representation of a municipal drinking water authority involving contamination of the public water supply with MTBE.
The representation of the operator of a POTW in a civil penalty action initiated by EPA under the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to enforce pre-treatment standards.

Personal Injury Suit Against Natural Gas Drillers Survives Dismissal

In Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., No. 3:09-cv-02284-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2010), sixty-three individuals who resided in Dimock and Montrose, Pennsylvania filed suit against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and Gas Search Drilling Services Corp. bringing claims that defendants' drilling and operation of natural gas wells injured them and harmed their property. Defendants moved to dismiss four of the eight counts in the second amended complaint-a claim under the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, 35 P.S. §§ 6020.101-.1305 ("HSCA"), strict liability, medical monitoring trust fund, and gross negligence-as well as moving to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to all the claims, except for gross negligence, and denied the motion to strike in its entirety.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs executed leases with Cabot, giving it the right to extract natural gas from their properties. Plaintiffs claimed that Cabot improperly extracted the natural gas using hydrofracturing and other production techniques that released methane, natural gas, and other toxins onto their land and into their groundwater. As a result, plaintiffs claimed that their property was damaged and that they were suffering from numerous physical illnesses. Plaintiffs sought an injunction stopping future natural gas production, compensatory and punitive damages, medical monitoring, and attorney fees and costs.

Defendants sought dismissal of the HSCA count because plaintiffs failed to give sixty days notice before filing suit and failed to show that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection was not diligently prosecuting the alleged violations. Plaintiffs argued that the sixty-day notice and diligence requirements do not apply to claims brought under § 702 of the HCSA, which they contend their complaint is based in part on. The Court agreed, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim under § 702 to which the notice and diligence requirements did not apply.

Defendant sought dismissal of the strict liability count arguing that such a theory is only appropriate for abnormally dangerous activities and Pennsylvania law holds that petroleum and natural gas-related activities are not abnormally dangerous. While recognizing the first part of defendants' premise, the Court found the law to be uncertain with respect to the second. The only cases cited by the parties involved the storage and transmission of natural gas, not the drilling for natural gas. Without further development of the factual record, the Court declined at this stage to make a determination of whether drilling constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity. Instead, the Court denied the motion, but indicated that defendants could later reassert this position in a motion for summary judgment, if appropriate.

As to the claim for medical monitoring, defendants argued that plaintiffs' allegations were conclusory and lacked sufficient factual support. Viewing the complaint as a whole, the Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that defendants acted negligently in drilling, used hazardous chemicals in the process, did so in close proximity to plaintiffs' homes, which exposed plaintiffs' to these hazardous chemicals, and that plaintiffs suffered physical injuries consistent with toxic exposure. The Court recognized that a much greater showing would be necessary to prove liability, but found that the allegations were sufficiently plausible to support the claim.

Finally, the claim for gross negligence was dismissed as Pennsylvania does not recognize such a claim.

Defendants also moved to strike plaintiffs' request for damages for fear of future illness, emotional distress, punitive damages, or attorneys' fees and costs. With respect to the damages for fear of future illness, the Court recognized that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must show a physical manifestation of an injury before he or she can recover damages for fear of a future illness. While the complaint did not specifically state that every plaintiff suffered an actual, physical injury, it did indicate that at least some had. Thus, the Court also declined to strike the requests for punitive damages and attorneys fees, finding that the allegations were sufficient to potentially support both.

Both Attorneys Miller and Picadio are listed in Best Lawyers in America, in the field of Environmental Law for 2005 - 2006.

Contact Us for Legal Help with Your Environmental Concerns

Our environmental law attorneys have the management, organizational, and legal skills you need to navigate both complex and simple environmental law matters. We provide our clients with the knowledge and information needed to make informed decisions. Contact us for additional information if the lawyers at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. can be of assistance to you.

Latest Business and Legal News

These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.

Business

[02/03] Japanese entrepreneurs aim for Silicon Valley

Intellectual Property

[01/31] EU probes Samsung over wireless patents

Insurance

[02/03] Aon Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2011 Results

Environment

[02/03] Pet elk denied re-entry to Pennsylvania from W.Va.

More...

Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[02/01] Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games, the district court's judgment of noninfringement upon stipulation is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface, and the parties based the stipulation of noninfringement on the district court's erroneous construction of this claim; and 2) the district court erred in its construction of the term "flexible."

More...

[01/27] Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.
In a patent infringement case involving a vehicle-mounted lamp, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity is reversed, its summary judgment of infringement is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment of nonliability for the defendant, where the district court committed reversible error in its holdings that: 1) a reasonable jury could find that a competing French patent failed to teach the required "conical beam of light;" and 2) the jury could have reasonably found the French patent to lack a lamp "adjacent to the window."

More...

Insurance Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

More...

[02/03] Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
The district court's grant of a petition to vacate an arbitral award is reversed, and on remand the district court is instructed to grant a cross-petition to confirm the award, where there was insufficient evidence before the district court on which to base a finding of "evident partiality" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act despite the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration.

More...

Environmental Law

[02/03] Pacific Rivers Council v. US Forest Service
In a suit challenging Forest Service amendments to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan as inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service is: 1) reversed in part, where the plaintiff had Article III standing, and the failure of the environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide any analysis of the environmental consequences on individual fish species was a failure to comply with the hard look requirement of NEPA; and 2) affirmed in part, insofar as the Forest Service did take a hard look at environmental consequences on amphibians in the EIS, in compliance with NEPA.

More...

[01/26] Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo
In a case in which a potential judgment-debtor sought a global anti-enforcement injunction against defendants from the Lago Agrio region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, prohibiting them from attempting to enforce an allegedly fraudulent judgment entered by an Ecuadorian court, the district court's grant of the injunction is reversed with orders to dismiss the claim, where the district court erred in construing New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act to grant the putative judgment-debtors a cause of action to challenge foreign judgments before enforcement of those judgments was sought.

More...

Commercial Law

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

More...

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

More...

Disclaimer | Site Map