context: Other jurisdictions similarly have held that the depositing of waste into a landfill triggers an unalterable and injurious process. Although the initial exposure to the contaminants caused by the Borough's depositing of municipal waste was not "an immediate and discrete injury, the fact that it is part of an injurious process is enough for it to constitute 'injury' under the policies."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 667 F.2d 1046, 1046
citation_a.parenthetical: "The injury and attendant liability became predictable precisely because it was discovered that past occurrences were likely to have set in motion injurious processes for which Keene could be held liable."
citation_a.sentence: Keene Corp., supra, 667 F.2d at 1046 (“The injury and attendant liability became predictable precisely because it was discovered that past occurrences were likely to have set in motion injurious processes for which Keene could be held liable.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 89 F.3d 995, 995-96
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that insured's initial discharge of contaminated rinsewater began "continuous indivisible process resulting in damage"
citation_b.sentence: See also Chemical Leaman, supra, 89 F.3d at 995-96 (holding that insured’s initial discharge of contaminated rinsewater began “continuous indivisible process resulting in damage”); New Castle County, supra, 725 F.Supp. at 812 (holding that “injurious process” was initiated before leachate contamination); DeYoung & Hickman, supra, 17 N. Ky. L.Rev. at 295 (concluding that dumping of waste in landfill is directly analogous to inhalation of asbestos); Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 28 F.Supp.2d at 454 (recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater).