X hits on this document





20 / 21

yet to be determined.  Again, the extent of Housewares’ liability is not the determinative issue.  Housewares had received a letter informing it of the existence of its liability.  This establishes that Housewares, through its agent, had been informed by the DES that it was to be held strictly liable for the costs of cleaning up the Antrim site.  Thus, almost three months before the inception of the first National policy on March 1, 1994, Housewares had knowledge that liability at the Antrim site was substantially certain to occur.

Having determined that National met its initial burden upon summary judgment, we must now determine whether Housewares designated evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact for trial with regard to its knowledge of liability at the locations in question.  We hold that it has not.  Housewares simply points to evidence demonstrating that it did not know the full extent of its liabilities, but as we have already noted, this is not the issue.  After reviewing the designated evidentiary materials, we hold that Housewares has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact concerning its knowledge of liability at the Terre Haute, Sidney, Lexington, and Antrim sites.  Therefore, a partial summary judgment as to the issue of Housewares’ knowledge of liability would have been proper, and, were this the only issue, summary judgment in favor of National would have been proper.  However, there remains an issue which must still be determined—whether National also knew of any liability Housewares had incurred.

Housewares claims that it disclosed its environmental liabilities as part of the underwriting process.  Housewares also notes that National makes no claim that

Document info
Document views30
Page views30
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 08:23:32 UTC 2016