The Colorado Supreme Court handed insurers another loss in an environmental liability case, citing ambiguous policy language and ruling that it must be construed in favor of coverage.
The high court’s ruling rejected insurers’ arguments against paying defense costs and coverage. The ruling against the insurers' arguments, which were based on policy exclusions for pollution and joint ventures, came in a proceeding brought against the Colorado cities of Englewood and Littleton brought by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act.
