1 / 23

Harz Family’s Closing Argument

Harz Family’s Closing Argument. Harz, et al. v. California Capital Insurance Company. U.S. Post Office San Roque Station From State Street. The Site. Huge Plume. $7 or $8 Million cleanup, not considering the possible damage to the lower aquifer.

alyson
Download Presentation

Harz Family’s Closing Argument

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Harz Family’s Closing Argument Harz, et al. v. California Capital Insurance Company

  2. U.S. Post Office San Roque Station From State Street

  3. The Site

  4. Huge Plume • $7 or $8 Million cleanup, not considering the possible damage to the lower aquifer. • To this day, the size of the plume has not been determined. • Plume maps show horizontal size, not vertical. • Vertical definition of the plume has not been established. • PCE hazardous substance. • 5 ppb – less than a teaspoon in drinking water exceeds drinking water standards. • 800 Feet from the McKenzie Well.

  5. Concentration of PCE in Groundwater – Nov. 1999

  6. “The Skunk”

  7. “The Skunk” is Ten Feet From Harz Family Property 10 Feet

  8. Undisputed in this Trial That Boot Breaks From Dutch Maid Caused The Contamination • Dr. Anne Farr Testified that the Boot Breaks Did It • No Defense Witness Testified to the Contrary • John Deloreto Testified that by 1995 at the Latest, the Deloreto Trust Knew Dutch Maid Was the Skunk • No Evidence Contrary to Evidence in the Harz Family’s Amended Complaint (Exhibit 32) and its Memorandum of Contentions of Law and Fact (Exhibit 39) that the Zells and the Deloreto Trust Were Legally Responsible

  9. Insurer Knew Tanks Did Not Store Dry Cleaning Chemicals Exhibit 5, p. 2

  10. Insurer Knew Any Contamination from Tanks and Well Had Already Been Cleaned Up Exhibit 5, p. 2

  11. Insurer Knew TCE and PCE Were From Dry Cleaning Establishments Exhibit 5, p. 2

  12. Insurer Knew Two Dry Cleaners Were Next to the Harz Family Property Exhibit 5, p. 2

  13. But, the Insurer Lied and Said the Contamination Came from Leakage from Underground Tanks Exhibit 5, pp. 7 - 8

  14. Insurer Was Looking to Deny Coverage Exhibit 5, pp. 2 - 3

  15. Claims Against the Harz Family – Same or Less Than in Richard Cross-Complaint

  16. Allegations of How the Harz Family Caused Contamination – Same or Less Than in Richard Cross-Complaint

More Related