Tag: Government

  • Municipalities and Public Entities

    What is a Pollutant? 

    Any material, substance, liquid, product, etc… which is introduced into an environment for other than its intended use / purpose. Fresh water, cheese, and milk have all been classified as pollutants by Insurance Carriers under various circumstances. What pollutants are impacting your business?

    Environmental Exposures Impacting Municipalities and Public Entities 

    Some common environmental exposures faced by public entities/municipalities include:  Wastewater treatment plants/pumping stations exposures from nuisance odor claims, raw sewage rupture, chlorine gas emissions;  Storm water runoff;  Sick building syndrome;  Asbestos;  Lead;  Mold;  Historic site conditions (i.e. old in ground tanks, surface impoundments, lagoons, clarifiers, unknown/old landfills);  Sewer lines;  Maintenance garage services;  Aboveground and/or underground storage tanks;  Leaks from elevator hydraulic fluid storage tanks;    Inadequate or no secondary containment for above ground storage tanks;  Parts washer solvents;  Storage and use of pesticides and herbicides;  Petroleum waste products;  Vehicle and equipment storage/parking over unsealed surfaces;  Parks, lakes, rivers and open land (i.e. midnight dumping, discharge of raw sewage/industrial waste, asphalt paving projects with storm discharge to open waters, unknown surface conditions);  Transfer and recycling facilities;  Hosting household hazardous material collection days or other environmentally sensitive materials/chemicals;  Landfills;  Inadequate methane collection or venting;  Leachate;  Natural resource damages;  Uncontrolled storm water;  Incinerators (i.e. airborne particulates, heavy metals (airborne and in residual ash), airborne volatile organic compounds);  Spills/releases during loading/unloading process;  Waste handling and disposal operations;  No auditing of waste handling and disposal companies;  Abandoned industrial sites within the municipality;  Contamination from cemeteries;  Poor community relations;  Poor information on the possible adverse reactions and interactions of chemical compounds that accidentally commingle during a fire;  Brownfields….

    Note:  The above list is intended only to outline some typical pollution exposures common to public entities, it is not all-encompassing.  If a public entity has schools, airports, hospitals, golf courses or other operations not outlined above contact environmental Strategist, Inc. (Phone 231-256-2122) for a list of common environmental exposures.

    Environmental Loss Examples 

    1. Chlorine release at a wastewater treatment plant resulted in toxic air emissions. Area residents and businesses were evacuated, and several people were hospitalized for inhalation of fumes. A total of 12 businesses were forced to shut down for the better part of a day. Bodily injury claims amounted to $70,000 and business interruption claims totaled $120,000.
    2. A wastewater treatment plant that was 25 years old had been upgraded several times over the years. Improper closure of an old clarifier and on-site surface impoundment had allowed gradual seepage into groundwater. These constituents contaminated the underlying groundwater, which was a potable water supply for the neighboring community. The costs for groundwater cleanup and emergency water supply for residents totaled $550,000.
    3. A local park owned by a municipality served as a convenient illegal disposal site for a recycling contractor. The contractor dumped five 55-gallon drums, releasing 275 gallons of used mineral spirits into the municipal park. When the drums were dumped, the hazardous contents leaked into the soil. In addition, the contractor emptied the contents of the vacuum truck into a nearby community lake. Total cleanup expenses amounted to $475,000.
    4. A maintenance garage used solvents for parts washing performed the work over a drain leading to an on-site septic system. Over time, the septic system leach field migrated into the surrounding soils and groundwater. At the time of the septic system closure and conversion to a public sewer system, the contamination was discovered. Site remediation involved soil removal and installation of a groundwater recovery system. The costs exceeded $720,000.
    5. A municipal property was selected as the site for a new library. Construction was halted after the discovery of an unknown landfill location at the site. As a result of haphazard disposal techniques, there had been a wide array of materials disposed at this site. An investigation revealed that the landfill occupied about three acres and the refuse was approximately 20 feet deep. The cost to exhume all buried materials and sort them for proper disposal exceeded $1 million. Additionally, further investigation turned up soil contaminated with pesticides, total petroleum hydrocarbons and various volatile organic compounds. Soil investigations, cleanup and disposal amounted to approximately $500,000, bringing total costs to $1.5 million.
    6. At a newly built wastewater treatment plant pumping station, a faulty valve malfunctioned. As a result, a ruptured pipe released 2.8 million gallons of raw sewage into a local creek. Municipal workers acted quickly to stop the pipe rupture. Raw sewage traveled downstream to a larger river. The river was used by local fisherman, recreational boaters and marinas. Many boats were damaged by the sewage and marinas were forced to close temporarily while the riverbanks were cleaned up. The total cost of property damage and loss of income claims totaled $195,000.
    7. William Lee Slocum Jr., of Youngsville, Pa. has pleaded guilty in Pittsburgh U.S. District court to six counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act when he operated the Youngsville Sewage Treatment Plant between 1983 and 1995.  The Justice Department said during that period there were repeated discharges of raw sewage and sewage sludge from the plant into Brokenstraw Creek, a tributary of the Allegheny River.  Slocum, a Pennsylvania State senator, could be sentenced to one year in prison and/or a fine of $100,000 per violation.
    8. The facilities department for a municipality hired a licensed hazardous waste transporter to pick-up and deliver three barrels of spent solvents, used for cleaning their boiler, to a treatment plant. While loading on municipal grounds, one barrel fell and spilled its con-tents, which seeped into the ground. Shortly after, twenty neighbors notified the state health department that their well water smelled odd. Health officials determined that chemicals from the accident had seeped into their wells. The municipality paid $1.2 million in damages and clean-up costs.
    9. A municipality hired a fiber optics company to install a network of data and voice cables. The job included directional drilling under a number of roads. While drilling, the contractor hit a fuel line and did not report it. After about 2 years, neighbors smelled gas in their well water. During investigation, the damaged fuel line was discovered and determined as the source of contamination. Since the fiber optics company was no longer in business, the municipality was held liable for damages and clean-up costs in excess of $2.7 million.
    10. A water treatment plant supplied potable water to 10,000 residents. A malfunction at the plant allowed an improperly treated volume of water to be distributed to the residents. As a result, a large number of residents became ill and several were hospitalized. The residents filed a class action suit against the water treatment company for bodily injury as well as pain and suffering.  The General Liability policy denied the claim citing the total pollution exclusion on the policy. A court awarded the residents $750,000 in damages. In addition, the water treatment plant incurred $300,000 in legal defense expenses.
    11. At a transfer station, vandals littered an area with debris and overturned drums of chemicals and maintenance fluids stored at the site. The vandalism went undetected for more than a week.  The contents of the drums seeped into on-site and off-site soils and contaminated area groundwater and residential wells. Costs for property damage claims from nearby residents and for soil and groundwater cleanup exceeded $500,000.
    12. A wastewater treatment plant maintained its own sewer lines. Due to the age of the lines, several cracks had developed over the years. These cracks had continuously leaked liquid raw sewage over many years and eventually polluted a nearby stream. Residents in the area sued the treatment plant for the cost to remediate the stream as well as loss of enjoyment of the stream.  Claims exceeded $350,000.
    13. A process tank at a wastewater treatment plant malfunctioned.  The tank discharged a large volume of untreated wastewater into a nearby stream, causing damage to aquatic life.  Several residents and environmental groups filed property damage lawsuits.

    Environmental Risk Transfer Strategies

    The majority of public entities operating today, lack the financial strength to self-insure their environmental liabilities.  Consideration needs to be given to the economies of scale afforded with environmental liability insurance as part of your risk transfer strategy.

    The Three Main Benefits environmental liability insurance offers:  

    1. Defense Costs: Environmental liabilities are relatively new and very litigious.  Even if you do nothing wrong you can still get named in a suit and have to expense defense costs i.e. legal fees, environmental investigations, .
    2. Claim Management: All policies come with specialists to assist you in handling a claim.  Who is in charge of communications, public relations, emergency response, government compliance, financial management, third party claims for bodily injury, property damage, natural resource damages….?
    3. Third Party Liability: The majority of the time the cost to clean up the environmental problem/s is far less than the associated claims that come in from third parties for bodily injury, property damage and business interruption.  You need to look at your client’s and neighbors that can be impacted if you or a sub-contractor/vendor cause an environmental loss.

    Environmental Liability Insurance Coverages

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY (EIL)

    EIL is for public entities susceptible to economic loss caused by pollution that actually or allegedly originated from their operations.  Sometimes referred to as pollution legal liability this coverage is for those who own, operate, lease, or have any other insurable interest in real property and the operations. Coverage can be written in a variety of ways addressing unknown preexisting conditions or new conditions.  Coverage can include third party bodily injury and property damage along with business interruption and extra expense, on and off site cleanup costs, legal defense expenses, non-owned disposal sites, transportation and more. EIL can be offered on multi year terms.  Sewer lines and pump/lift stations can be covered by EIL.  Most EIL policies cover above ground storage tanks.

    PROPERTY TRANSFER COVERAGE

    When buying, selling or condemning property there can be unknown preexisting environmental conditions. Since a Phase I or Phase II survey cannot guarantee uncovering all potential environmental liabilities, insurance companies have created property transfer insurance. This coverage protects the new owner or any party with an insurable interest, against unknown environmental conditions that may be discovered during the policy period, that were not caused by the new owner.  This coverage not only helps to keep the property at its maximum value, it will assist the purchaser in being able to secure the necessary financing to complete their transaction.

    TRANSPORTATION POLLUTION LIABILITY (TPL)

    Generally, business auto or truckers policies will exclude pollution losses arising from spills or other releases of their cargo. Broadened auto pollution liability (typicallyFormCA9948) affords coverage during the loading, unloading and transportation, for a spill, release or sudden upset and over turn of transported cargo.  Note:  AnMCS-90 endorsement is not pollution coverage.

    UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST, AST)

    Financial responsibility requirements ensure that owners and operators of underground storage tank systems have the ability to financially handle a release from an underground storage tank. The responsibility encompasses the ability to pay funds for corrective action and third party bodily injury and property damage from non-sudden and sudden and accidental releases from a regulated underground system.

    Note:  For public entities, you have potential indirect environmental exposures from the vendors you hire to perform services.  Should your vendors cause an environmental problem or exacerbate an existing environmental issue their general liability insurance policy generally will have either an absolute or total pollution exclusion.  In order to be protected you should make sure your vendors have the proper environment insurance coverage before they do any work on your behalf.

    CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY (CPL)

    This coverage can be purchased to meet two specific exposures. First, contractors that perform remedial activities (asbestos, lead, mold, soil or ground water remediation) there is the standard contractor’s pollution liability (CPL) insurance coverage. This protects the insured for pollution conditions they may cause or exacerbate an existing situation while performing remedial services. This is for covered operations performed by or on behalf of the insured.  The loss must occur away from any premises the insured owns, rents, leases or occupies, in other words while they are performing remedial services at an educational institution.

    Secondly, standard contractors (i.e. general contractors, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, janitorial, demolition, drilling, excavation, highway, street and paving contractors, rigging, utility, millwrights, artisan, etc.), in performing their services may cause an environmental liability that is generally excluded from their general liability coverage. For these contractors there is contingent contractor’s pollution liability (CCPL) coverage. Basically they are afforded the same coverage as remedial contractors but the cost to purchase this insurance is substantially less.

    PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (E&O) 

    Should an environmental engineer/consultant or analytical laboratory make an error or an omission in performing professional services for you they will need a E&O policy including pollution for there to be coverage.  Some professional services could include Phase I or Phase II site assessments, All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI), air monitoring, lead and asbestos assessments, waste characterization, remedial action plans, water testing, mold survey’s, environmental training….

  • Environmental Risk Managers “Business Professionals” Series #2, TEAMing with Attorney’s To Drive Insurance Sales

    Of all the “business professionals” (i.e. attorney’s, accountant’s, banker’s, realtor’s, environmental engineers) we are highlighting in the ERMI TEAMing with “Business Professionals” series, attorneys represent the lowest hanging fruit for insurance professionals to TEAM with.

    There are several reasons for this which we will cover in this competitive environmental intelligence but mainly, attorneys tend to specialize in specific areas of law, i.e. general business, estate planning, bankruptcy, patent / trademark, environmental, criminal, international, employee, civil…  This means an attorney is well versed in their specific area of law but possess very little knowledge about assisting their clients to manage and transfer their environmental exposures.  Note:  As highlighted in Series #1, TEAMing With “Business Professionals”, every business and individual is impacted by environmental exposures.

    Historically, once an environmentally reactive business / individual calls their attorney to assist them with an environmental liability, the attorney brings in their firm’s environmental specialist to address the issue.  This business model will generally lead to some form of litigation and what attorney’s clients have learned over the years about environmental litigation is its very time consuming, stresses resources and desired results are generally not achieved

    Insurance professionals are not going to fix a broken business model overnight, but you can fill a huge gap in most attorney’s work, lack of financial assurance to backstop their legal documents.  In today’s business environment, the name of the game for attorney’s is avoid litigation to grow their client base and business.  Insurance professionals are armed with an arsenal of products to assist attorneys to grow their business model.

    The bottom line, today’s transparent business environment has changed the way Attorney’s must address environmental exposures impacting their client’s which means opportunity for insurance professionals.

    Note:  Education is a vital component to building a TEAM relationship with “Business Professionals”.  Throughout the ERMI “Business Professionals” series we will offer coaching tips to assist you in building your relationships with “Business Professionals”.

    ERMI TEAM Relationship Coaching Tip:  In some contracts, attorney’s will require financial assurance to backstop indemnifications contained in the contract.  They will generally achieve this utilizing standard property and casualty and environmental insurances with coverage being evidenced by a certificate of insurance.  The problem this strategy presents in relation to environmental insurance is, an environmental insurance policy will not be issued without the insurance carrier first receiving a completed and signed “warranty” insurance application.  In general terms the application will state that the environmental insurance policy is being issued based upon the signed “warranty” application and that the application will become part of the policy.  The application goes on to say at the time of a loss if it’s discovered the application is not accurate, the insurance carrier can deny coverage.  Without first confirming the “warranty” application is accurately filled out the certificate of insurance may not be worth the paper it is written on and the same is true for the attorney’s financial assurances contained in the contract.  Coaching attorneys to understand warranty applications will fill a gap in their financial assurance strategy in contracts and a gigantic hole in their E&O exposure.

    To support the above statements let’s look at another example.  For years, attorneys have utilized environmental indemnifications in real estate Buy / Sell Agreements, mergers and acquisitions and many other legal instruments.  Generally speaking, attorneys feel content with addressing potential environmental exposures by simply utilizing environmental indemnifications in legal instruments and not backing them up with a financial assurance mechanism (i.e. bond, letter of credit, monies on deposit, insurance).

    Today we know the problems created by this mindset and the fact that environmental indemnifications are a very cursory way of addressing environmental exposures in legal transactions.

    ERMI TEAM Relationship Coaching Tip:  Environmental insurance policies pay for defense costs.  Do you think an attorney would rather collect their fees from a financially solvent insurance carrier or a client that just found out they have contaminated half their towns drinking water?

    For decades, our Federal Government has utilized financial assurance requirements for asbestos and lead abatement contractors, regulated underground storage tanks, hazardous & industrial waste haulers, Landfills…, so why not more attorney’s?

    Insurance professionals have a variety of financial assurance products to assist attorneys to reduce their E&O exposure, one of which is pollution liability insurance.  TEAMing with ERMI will allow you access to the full menu of the environmental insurance products offered by the major environmental insurance carriers.

    ERMI TEAM Coaching Tip:  Talking points with attorney’s.

    To understand why “Best Practices” for attorneys means moving beyond their current litigious business model to possessing a working knowledge of managing and transferring environmental exposures, we first must be on the same page about a few environmental facts.

    1. What is a “Pollutant”? If you look at an environmental indemnification in a contract, it generally describes a Pollutant as smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids…..  However, due to the way courts and insurance companies have responded to lawsuits and insurance claims, environmental Strategist™ (eS) has developed a definition that is easier to understand.  eS define a “Pollutant” as a material, substance or product that gets introduced to an environment for other than its intended use or purpose.” In other words, something that ends up where it does not belong can be a pollutant.  eS have examples where fresh water, milk, cheese, fruit, beer and more have all been defined as a “Pollutant”.
    2. Law firms generally utilize specially trained environmental attorney’s to address their client’s environmental exposures when in reality their biggest environmental exposures are with their other legal specialist’s i.e. general business, health, international, labor, estate planning, merger & acquisition, real estate…. In short, nearly every attorney must possess a working knowledge of proactively addressing their client’s environmental exposures.  TEAMing with ERMI insurance professionals can do this.  In short, you become the law firms backroom environmental risk manager on managing and transferring their client’s environmental exposures.
    3. Historically, attorneys have made their money by addressing past environmental problems such as asbestos, lead, mold and so much more. This reactive approach has cost attorneys time, resources, client relationships and much more.  TEAMing with ERMI we can coach attorney’s on proactively managing and transferring their client’s environmental exposures to increase productivity and profits while reducing their E&O exposure.
    4. The inability of at fault parties to meet environmental indemnifications in contracts is a reputational and liability risk for attorney’s. Attorneys not practicing environmental “Best Practices” may find their E&O insurance at risk of claims from disgruntled client’s.

    ERMI TEAM Coaching Tip:  You would be amazed how many contracts Environmental Risk Managers (ERMI) reviews that an attorney constructed requiring the wrong pollution insurance.  On almost a weekly basis ERMI will assist an attorney with correcting their contract to make sure the proper pollution insurance is being requested and put into place.  TEAMing with ERMI we can make sure your legal TEAM members are not opening themselves up to an E&O exposure by requesting the improper environmental insurance.

    Today’s business environment is demanding attorneys know if their work is preserving an asset or creating an environmental liability for their client and themselves.  Insurance professionals TEAMing with attorney’s to manage and transfer the attorney’s clients environmental exposures will position themselves as a trusted advisor and strategic partner while driving the sales of their insurance products.

    In Environmental Risk Managers “Business Professionals” Series #3 we will strategize on TEAM building with Bankers / Financial Institutions.

  • Environmental Risk Managers “Business Professionals” Series #2, TEAMing with Attorney’s To Drive Insurance Sales

    Of all the “business professionals” (i.e. attorney’s, accountant’s, banker’s, realtor’s, environmental engineers) we are highlighting in the ERMI TEAMing with “Business Professionals” series, attorneys represent the lowest hanging fruit for insurance professionals to TEAM with.

    There are several reasons for this which we will cover in this competitive environmental intelligence but mainly, attorneys tend to specialize in specific areas of law, i.e. general business, estate planning, bankruptcy, patent / trademark, environmental, criminal, international, employee, civil…  This means an attorney is well versed in their specific area of law but possess very little knowledge about assisting their clients to manage and transfer their environmental exposures.  Note:  As highlighted in Series #1, TEAMing With “Business Professionals”, every business and individual is impacted by environmental exposures.

    Historically, once an environmentally reactive business / individual calls their attorney to assist them with an environmental liability, the attorney brings in their firm’s environmental specialist to address the issue.  This business model will generally lead to some form of litigation and what attorney’s clients have learned over the years about environmental litigation is its very time consuming, stresses resources and desired results are generally not achieved

    Insurance professionals are not going to fix a broken business model overnight, but you can fill a huge gap in most attorney’s work, lack of financial assurance to backstop their legal documents.  In today’s business environment, the name of the game for attorney’s is avoid litigation to grow their client base and business.  Insurance professionals are armed with an arsenal of products to assist attorneys to grow their business model.

    The bottom line, today’s transparent business environment has changed the way Attorney’s must address environmental exposures impacting their client’s which means opportunity for insurance professionals.

    Note:  Education is a vital component to building a TEAM relationship with “Business Professionals”.  Throughout the ERMI “Business Professionals” series we will offer coaching tips to assist you in building your relationships with “Business Professionals”.

    ERMI TEAM Relationship Coaching Tip:  In some contracts, attorney’s will require financial assurance to backstop indemnifications contained in the contract.  They will generally achieve this utilizing standard property and casualty and environmental insurances with coverage being evidenced by a certificate of insurance.  The problem this strategy presents in relation to environmental insurance is, an environmental insurance policy will not be issued without the insurance carrier first receiving a completed and signed “warranty” insurance application.  In general terms the application will state that the environmental insurance policy is being issued based upon the signed “warranty” application and that the application will become part of the policy.  The application goes on to say at the time of a loss if it’s discovered the application is not accurate, the insurance carrier can deny coverage.  Without first confirming the “warranty” application is accurately filled out the certificate of insurance may not be worth the paper it is written on and the same is true for the attorney’s financial assurances contained in the contract.  Coaching attorneys to understand warranty applications will fill a gap in their financial assurance strategy in contracts and a gigantic hole in their E&O exposure.

    To support the above statements let’s look at another example.  For years, attorneys have utilized environmental indemnifications in real estate Buy / Sell Agreements, mergers and acquisitions and many other legal instruments.  Generally speaking, attorneys feel content with addressing potential environmental exposures by simply utilizing environmental indemnifications in legal instruments and not backing them up with a financial assurance mechanism (i.e. bond, letter of credit, monies on deposit, insurance).

    Today we know the problems created by this mindset and the fact that environmental indemnifications are a very cursory way of addressing environmental exposures in legal transactions.

    ERMI TEAM Relationship Coaching Tip:  Environmental insurance policies pay for defense costs.  Do you think an attorney would rather collect their fees from a financially solvent insurance carrier or a client that just found out they have contaminated half their towns drinking water?

    For decades, our Federal Government has utilized financial assurance requirements for asbestos and lead abatement contractors, regulated underground storage tanks, hazardous & industrial waste haulers, Landfills…, so why not more attorney’s?

    Insurance professionals have a variety of financial assurance products to assist attorneys to reduce their E&O exposure, one of which is pollution liability insurance.  TEAMing with ERMI will allow you access to the full menu of the environmental insurance products offered by the major environmental insurance carriers.

    ERMI TEAM Coaching Tip:  Talking points with attorney’s.

    To understand why “Best Practices” for attorneys means moving beyond their current litigious business model to possessing a working knowledge of managing and transferring environmental exposures, we first must be on the same page about a few environmental facts.

    1. What is a “Pollutant”? If you look at an environmental indemnification in a contract, it generally describes a Pollutant as smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids…..  However, due to the way courts and insurance companies have responded to lawsuits and insurance claims, environmental Strategist™ (eS) has developed a definition that is easier to understand.  eS define a “Pollutant” as a material, substance or product that gets introduced to an environment for other than its intended use or purpose.” In other words, something that ends up where it does not belong can be a pollutant.  eS have examples where fresh water, milk, cheese, fruit, beer and more have all been defined as a “Pollutant”.
    2. Law firms generally utilize specially trained environmental attorney’s to address their client’s environmental exposures when in reality their biggest environmental exposures are with their other legal specialist’s i.e. general business, health, international, labor, estate planning, merger & acquisition, real estate…. In short, nearly every attorney must possess a working knowledge of proactively addressing their client’s environmental exposures.  TEAMing with ERMI insurance professionals can do this.  In short, you become the law firms backroom environmental risk manager on managing and transferring their client’s environmental exposures.
    3. Historically, attorneys have made their money by addressing past environmental problems such as asbestos, lead, mold and so much more. This reactive approach has cost attorneys time, resources, client relationships and much more.  TEAMing with ERMI we can coach attorney’s on proactively managing and transferring their client’s environmental exposures to increase productivity and profits while reducing their E&O exposure.
    4. The inability of at fault parties to meet environmental indemnifications in contracts is a reputational and liability risk for attorney’s. Attorneys not practicing environmental “Best Practices” may find their E&O insurance at risk of claims from disgruntled client’s.

    ERMI TEAM Coaching Tip:  You would be amazed how many contracts Environmental Risk Managers (ERMI) reviews that an attorney constructed requiring the wrong pollution insurance.  On almost a weekly basis ERMI will assist an attorney with correcting their contract to make sure the proper pollution insurance is being requested and put into place.  TEAMing with ERMI we can make sure your legal TEAM members are not opening themselves up to an E&O exposure by requesting the improper environmental insurance.

    Today’s business environment is demanding attorneys know if their work is preserving an asset or creating an environmental liability for their client and themselves.  Insurance professionals TEAMing with attorney’s to manage and transfer the attorney’s clients environmental exposures will position themselves as a trusted advisor and strategic partner while driving the sales of their insurance products.

    In Environmental Risk Managers “Business Professionals” Series #3 we will strategize on TEAM building with Bankers / Financial Institutions.