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: see also
citation_a.identifier: 28 F.Supp.2d 454, 454
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater
citation_a.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).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 667 F.2d 1046, 1046
citation_b.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_b.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.”).