Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse IRMI OnlineIRMI Online
Expand How To Use IRMI OnlineHow To Use IRMI Online
My Paid Publications
Expand What's NewWhat's New
Expand DashboardsDashboards
Collapse Commercial Liability InformationCommercial Liability Information
Collapse Free Commercial Liability CommentaryFree Commercial Liability Commentary
Expand Additional Insured IssuesAdditional Insured Issues
Collapse EnvironmentalEnvironmental
Asbestos Damages Excluded under Property Policy (January 2012)
Insuring Completed Operations Pollution Risks (January 2012)
Emergency Response Costs in Pollution Liability Policies (August 2011)
Judgment Day Comes in Global Warming Litigation (February 2011)
Green Building Projects and Environmental Risk (January 2010)
No CGL Coverage for Chimney Repairs Due to Carbon Monoxide Leakage (January 2011)
CGL Pollution Exclusion Applies to Dust and Diesel Fumes (December 2010)
In a Year of Skepticism, Global Warming Is Still a Timely Topic (November 2010)
Mold from a Covered Concurrent Cause Still Excluded (November 2010)
Pollution Exclusion Found Inapplicable (May 2010)
An Update on Chinese Drywall Claims (April 2010)
CGL Policy Held To Cover Oil Spill Cleanup Costs (April 2010)
Mold Damage to Contractor's Nondefective Work Caused by Subcontractor May Be Covered under Prime Contractor's Umbrella Policy (January 2010)
CGL Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Injury from Carbon Monoxide Released from Heater (December 2009)
Insurer and Environmental Consultant Have No Duty To Warn of Mold (July 2009)
No Coverage in Homeowner's Policy for Mold Damage from Water Pipe Leak (May 2009)
Construction Debris Is Excluded Pollutant (February 2009)
Pollution Legal Liability Market Update (July 2008)
"Damages" under a 1973 CGL Insurance Policy (April 2008)
"Suits" under a 1973 CGL Insurance Policy (February 2008)
Common Law Exceptions to the 1973 "Owned Property" Exclusion (January 2008)
Epoxy Fumes Excluded by CGL Insurance (November 2007)
Contractors Pollution Liability Update (October 2007)
Allocating Losses under a 1973 CGL (September 2007)
Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Dirt and Rocks (March 2007)
Pollution Exclusions in CGL Policy Bars Coverage for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (February 2007)
Naturally Occurring Hazards: They Can Be "Hazardous" to Your Contractors Pollution Liability Coverage (January 2007)
Mold Is Not Covered as an Ensuing Loss of Leaking Water (January 2007)
Promoting Insurance-Based Solutions to Brownfield Redevelopment Challenges (November 2006)
Financing Environmental Loss with Environmental Insurance (October 2006)
Premium Instead of Prayer Needed for Mold Coverage (July 2006)
Mold Litigation: Expert Testimony Required to Prove Causation (April 2006)
Subrogation and Intervention in Construction Defect Case Involving Water and Mold (February 2006)
Environmental Insurance Helps Create Sustainable Development Out of "Brownfields" (December 2005)
Absolute Pollution Exclusion in Contractors Policy Does Not Bar Coverage for Toxic Fume Injuries (November 2005)
Manganism? (October 2005)
Environmental Insurance as a FASB Fix (August 2005)
Silica Claim Barred by Total Pollution Exclusion in CGL Policy (August 2005)
Broad Pollution Exclusion Is Ambiguous: Lead Covered by Policy (May 2005)
Silica—The Next Environmental Issue (April 2005)
Whether Mold Cleanup Costs Are Covered Depends on Causation (April 2005)
Homeowners Policy Unambiguously Excluded Coverage for Mold (October 2004)
Environmental Liability Buyouts: A Developing Option (August 2004)
Development of Environmental Risk Profiles for Construction Firms (July 2004)
Managing the Environmental Risk from Subcontractors (May 2004)
Seven Tips on Mold Management Programs (November 2003)
Environmental Due Diligence: The Information Is Everywhere! (May 2003)
The New Reality of Risk: Environmental Toxic Torts (May 2003)
Insured Fixed-Price Contracts and Environmental Cleanup (April 2003)
Managing Environmental Liabilities through Contracts (January 2003)
Environmental Insurance Changes the Game for Commercial Lenders (December 2002)
Environmental Risk in Retail: Exposures and Solutions (October 2002)
The Environmental Risks of Residential Construction (October 2002)
A Mold Prevention Program (July 2002)
Navigating the U.S. Environmental Liability Market (Part 2) (March 2002)
Navigating the U.S. Environmental Liability Market (Part 1) (March 2002)
The Pitfalls of Accepting Contaminated Fill (March 2002)
Mold: The Newest Environmental Hazard (September 2001)
Conducting Proper Environment Risk Assessments (July 2001)
Introduction to ISO 14001 (April 2001)
Brownfield Redevelopment: A Risk versus Reward Proposition (December 2000)
Colleges and Universities: Changing Your "School of Thought" When It Comes to Environmental Liability (October 2000)
Lenders and Environmental Liability (September 2000)
There's a Fungus Among Us (June 2000)
The U.S. Environmental Liability Insurance Market (May 2000)
Hidden Environmental Exposures of the Construction Industry (March 2000)
Expand Liability InsuranceLiability Insurance
Expand Commercial Property InformationCommercial Property Information
Expand Commercial Auto InformationCommercial Auto Information
Expand D&O, PL, E&O, EPLI InformationD&O, PL, E&O, EPLI Information
Expand Workers Compensation InformationWorkers Compensation Information
Classifications and Cross-References
Expand Risk Mgt. and Multiline InformationRisk Mgt. and Multiline Information
Expand Risk Finance InformationRisk Finance Information
Expand Construction InformationConstruction Information
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
Expand Claims, Caselaw, LegalClaims, Caselaw, Legal
Expand Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Expand Glossary of Insurance & Risk Management TermsGlossary of Insurance & Risk Management Terms
Expand SearchSearch
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
System Requirements
Support

The Pitfalls of Accepting Contaminated Fill

March 2002

What happens when an earthwork contractor accepts fill material at the site to establish proper elevations only to discover later that the "clean fill" is anything but? Jeff Slivka provides ways to control the exposure.

by Jeff Slivka
New Day Underwriting Managers LLC

An earthwork contractor walks on to a job site. A commercial structure will be built upon completion of the site prep work. The earthwork contractor accepts fill material at the site to establish proper elevations. The same material is used throughout the site wherever needed.

Several weeks into the project, it is determined that the supposedly "clean fill" was not so "clean" after all; it contained heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (solvents) that rendered the material hazardous. (Keep in mind that where hazardous waste/material comes in contact with non-hazardous material, all material is subsequently deemed hazardous and must be remediated, treated, or disposed of as such.) The project comes to a halt, and litigation ensues.

Two questions usually follow: "Where did this stuff come from?" and "Who is responsible for placing it?" Unfortunately, those are questions that should have been asked and answered before the fill was ever accepted. Had the contractor had the answers to these questions, they may have prevented a huge headache.

Proper Expectations

It is always important to know what the client's expectations are when it comes to how "clean" the fill must be to avoid litigation and potentially devastating cleanup costs. In Colonial Oil Industries, Inc. v Underwriters Subscribing to Policy Nos. TO31504670 and TO31504671, No. 95-9603 (11th Cir Feb. 27, 1997), the differing views between the two parties to a contract about what constitutes "clean fill" caused a lot of problems.

In the early 1990s, Colonial contracted to dredge part of a river to make way for construction of a new pier. Colonial also contracted to deposit the dredged materials on a nearby island owned by Charles Gay. Colonial and Gay signed a "Spoilage Disposal Easement" permitting Colonial to deposit "clean fill" on the island. Colonial obtained all necessary permits and started dredging.

The permit described the materials to be deposited as "firm silty to gray sandy clay"; however, the easement never stipulated exactly what was to be deposited. Apparently Mr. Gay had expected "sandbox quality sand" to be dredged and deposited on his island, but when he inspected the site, he found bricks, wire cable, and lumber. Mr. Gay sued to have Colonial remove the deposited materials, alleging, among other things, that Colonial had violated the easement by depositing things other than "clean fill" and that Colonial was liable for dumping hazardous materials onto his property.

The point of this case—when the owner decides he does not like what the contractor has done and/or he discovers something that is not quite as clean as it he thinks it should be—there is the potential for litigation. Whether hazardous material has been brought onto the owner's property by the contractor, or the contractor merely spreads pre-existing contamination around the site, there is a likelihood that the contractor stands to foot a portion, if not all, of the bill for the cleanup.

For purposes of this article, we will not cover the complex web of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) liability associated with the above cases. Rather, we will focus instead on the way to mitigate or prevent such risk. However, the thing about CERCLA liability that must be understood (but many times not accepted) is that, as a potentially responsible party (PRP)—which includes past and present owners of the property, generators or transporters of the waste or materials—you may be held jointly and severally liable. This means you could be held responsible for a portion or the entire necessary cleanup, and this applies retroactively, going back prior to the promulgation of any environmental statutes.

Controlling the Exposure

There's a simple way to avoid the above situation: never accept contaminated material on the job site. Easy! If you need more suggestions, you may want to incorporate some of the tactics below to prevent yourself from getting into such a mess.

Visual inspections. Conduct visual inspections of the material before it is accepted and during the unloading process to ensure the material "looks" acceptable. Simple visual inspections can identify petroleum hydrocarbons and other contaminants that discolor soils, let alone the more obvious such as asphalt, lumber, block, concrete, painted materials, and the like.

Request sample analysis. In the event the material is not coming from a known clean fill site, make a request for the material to be sampled and analyzed for organic and inorganic (heavy metals) compounds, at minimum. In the event the material was analyzed, your decision becomes relatively easy. Accept it or, depending on the type and levels of contaminants, use it for another purpose or site.

Sample the material yourself. In reality, if the owner of the material is not in the practice of analyzing the material, the likelihood that they will do it for you is slim. Therefore, you may want to attempt to analyze or inspect yourself. With a photo-ionizing detector (PID) or organic vapor analyzer (OVA), certain contaminants can be identified. Such tests will not tell you exactly what you have and will not detect heavy metals, but can raise some red flags if there is a real problem. For a few hundred dollars, you can purchase either piece of equipment. Not a bad investment! However, make sure the personnel utilizing these devices are properly trained to operate them.

Audit the facilities from which the material comes. In the event you routinely accept fill material from one or two locations, conduct a simple and brief audit of the facility or site. Ask to look at their environmental management plans, permit status, operations, site security, waste management, on-site tanks and the like. This will give you a good idea of what you are dealing with and can be conducted quite painlessly.

Never accept material from unknown origin. This is by far the most important and least expensive tactic. If there is one thing that should certainly be a part of any company's practice, it is finding out where the material came from. Knowing the location and the organization providing the material can tell you much about the stuff without ever setting eyes on it. This also applies to sites where soil/dirt is already stockpiled. Identify the source!

Contractual indemnity. You can always attempt to have the supplier of the material indemnify you for any resulting liability arising out of contaminated fill. As with every indemnity, there are positives and negatives. The biggest drawback is that the indemnity is only as strong as the financial condition of the indemnitor! Therefore, ensure the supplier has the financial wherewithal to support such a contract before entering into it.

Do Something!

Too many times, costly headaches could have been prevented with simple, inexpensive tactics executed properly. Don't practice "knock-on-wood risk management." You know, close your eyes and hope and pray that nothing goes wrong! We all do it, and sometimes it works. Sometimes!

As I end many of articles such as this one, my simple recommendation is—do something! There are a few tactics outlined above that can help. If you have already instituted some or all, great! If not, it is definitely something you should consider.


Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Advertisements
    
 
© 2000-2012 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.