Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Pollution Exclusion Interpretation, and Criminal Matter

By FindLaw Staff on September 13, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC, No. 09-1774, a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, the court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff where 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.

In US v. Seay, No. 09-2778, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm while being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance, holding that 1) defendant waived his Fed. R. Crim. P. 48 argument by pleading guilty; 2) defendant's Second Amendment challenge was jurisdictional and, therefore, survived his guilty plea; and 3) 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3) was the type of "longstanding prohibition[] on the possession of firearms" that Heller declared presumptively lawful.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard