the court acknowledged the possibility that the “injurious process” could have been initiated when toxic waste was first dumped in the landfill: “Although testing by Weston did not reveal contamination of third party property until 1989, the insurers themselves have argued that the geologic conditions at Landfill No. 5 were sufficient to foster the development of leachate contamination of the groundwater immediately upon the beginning of landfill operations in 1970.” Id. at 1124-25. Moreover, Dr. Steiner’s testimony rega olding 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 (<HOLDING>). The dissent below also rejected the
recognizing allegation that chemical contamination continued to migrate onto plaintiffs property and enter groundwater and soil holding that coverage was triggered despite applicability of owned property exclusion because government had mandated remediation of the environmental contamination holding groundwater contamination is continuous process in which the property damage is evenly distributed over the period of time from the first contamination to the end of the last triggered policy recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater recognizing that watershed isolation or acquisition serves to prevent and control water contamination