42 U.S.C. § 9672
State laws; scope of subchapter
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to affect either the tort law or the law governing the interpretation of insurance contracts of any State. The definitions of pollution liability and pollution liability insurance under any State law shall not be applied for the purposes of this subchapter, including recognition or qualification of risk retention groups or purchasing groups.
The authority to offer or to provide insurance under this subchapter shall be limited to coverage of pollution liability risks and this subchapter does not authorize a risk retention group or purchasing group to provide coverage of any other line of insurance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1990–2013 · leading case: Chubb Custom Insurance Company v. Space Systems/ Loral, Inc.
Chubb Custom Insurance Company v. Space Systems/ Loral, Inc. (2013)
“See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9672 (a), 9607(e). CHUBB CUSTOM INS.”
American Policyholders Insurance Company v. Nyacol Products, Inc. (1993)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 9672 (a) (stating that CERCLA’s insurance subchapter “shall [not] be construed to affect .”
Hudson Insurance v. American Electric Corp. (1990)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 9672 (a). Thus, entities that are formed expressly for the purpose of providing insurance to cover CERCLA liabilities can expect that the content of their insurance policies will be subject to state insurance law.”
Hudson Ins. Co. v. Double D Management Co., Inc. (1991)
“§ 9651 (b), mandating that the President conduct a study to determine the availability and reasonableness of CERCLA insurance coverage, provides an inference that commercial liability insurance does not cover CERCLA risks can be put to rest by the clear language of 42 U.S.C. §…”
ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health & Environmental Quality (2000)
“”); 42 U.S.C. § 9672 (“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to affect either the tort law or the law governing the interpretation of insurance contracts of any State.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.