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

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.

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.

Concentration of PCE in Groundwater – Nov. 1999

“The Skunk”

“The Skunk” is Ten Feet From Harz Family Property

10 Feet

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

Insurer Knew Tanks Did Not Store Dry Cleaning Chemicals

Exhibit 5, p. 2Exhibit 5, p. 2

Insurer Knew Any Contamination from Tanks and Well Had Already Been Cleaned Up


Insurer Knew TCE and PCE Were From Dry Cleaning Establishments


Insurer Knew Two Dry Cleaners Were Next to the Harz Family Property


But, the Insurer Lied and Said the Contamination Came from Leakage from Underground Tanks

Exhibit 5, pp. 7 - 8Exhibit 5, pp. 7 - 8

Insurer Was Looking to Deny Coverage

Exhibit 5, pp. 2 - 3Exhibit 5, pp. 2 - 3

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

Claimant Date Response Costs Under Health and

Saftey Code or CERCLA?

Declaratory Relief?

Waste? Private Nuisance?

Public Nuisance?

Trespass? Water Code?

Negligence? Contribution or Equitable Indemnity?

Ultrahazarous Activity?

Richard 4/25/94 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRichard 7/7/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRichard 7/18/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Deloretto 8/9/95 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTeam 8/17/95 Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes YesZell 8/25/95 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCity 9/6/95 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

S.E.A. 10/20/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes NoS.E.A. 11/3/95 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes NoS.E.A. 4/24/96 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No

Richard 1/2/97 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTeam 1/22/97 Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes YesS.E.A. 10/1/97 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No

Deloretto 11/10/00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Claimant Date Abandoned Well? Sewers? Tanks? Conduit Allegations?

Escape, Release or Dispersal

Allegations?Richard 4/25/94 Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 6, 11.)

Richard 7/7/95 Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 3.) Yes (Para. 18.) Yes (Para. 18, 19.)


Deloretto 8/4/95 Yes (Para. 4, 57.) Yes (Para. 5, 57.) Yes (Para. 4.) Yes (Para. 39.) Yes (Para. 56.)

Team 8/17/95 No No No No Yes (Para. 1, 10.)

Zell 8/25/95 Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 5.) Yes (Para. 25.) Yes (Para. 41.)

City 9/6/95 No Yes (Para. 16.) No No Yes (Para. 16.)

S.E.A. 10/20/95 Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16, 26, 33.) Yes (Para. 3, 16, 33.) Yes (Para. 16.) Yes (Para. 25, 27, 33.)




Team 1/22/97 No No No No Yes (Para. 1, 10.)


Deloretto 11/10/00 Yes (Para. 2, 3, 60.) Yes (Para. 5, 60.) Yes (Para. 2, 3, 60.) Yes (Para. 33.) Yes (Para. 45.)

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

Documents

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