首页> 外文期刊>Hazardous waste consultant >National Defense Authorization Act Requires Third-Party Legal Action for Indemnity Claim
【24h】

National Defense Authorization Act Requires Third-Party Legal Action for Indemnity Claim

机译:国防授权法要求对赔偿要求采取第三方法律行动

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

In a January 31, 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that an insurance company has no indemnity claim against the United States under Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for costs incurred in an environmental remedial action at a former military base (American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. United States, No. 05-1020 C [Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2008]). Section 330 covers hazardous contamination on former military bases that have been closed under the 1990 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. The court noted that the claim could stand if the insurance company had been the subject of a third-party legal action. However, taking a narrow view of the type of "claim" that must be asserted for a party to receive government indemnification, the court found that a letter issued by the California EPA did not constitute a third-party legal action. This federal appeals court ruling was contrary to the findings in two other prior cases.
机译:在2008年1月31日的裁决中,美国联邦索赔法院裁定,根据《国防授权法》第330条,一家保险公司不应对美国在前军事基地进行的环境补救行动所产生的费用要求赔偿(美国国际特殊线路保险公司诉美国,第05-1020 C号[2008年1月31日,联邦法律])。第330节涵盖了根据1990年《国防基地关闭和重组法案》已经关闭的前军事基地的危险污染。法院指出,如果保险公司受到第三方法律诉讼,则该索赔可以成立。但是,从狭义的角度来看,当事方必须接受一方要求获得政府赔偿的情况,法院认为,加州EPA发出的信函并不构成第三方的法律诉讼。联邦上诉法院的裁决与其他两个先前案件的调查结果背道而驰。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号