Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People ex rel. Ryan v. Environmental Waste Resources, Inc.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Environmental Waste Resources, Inc.

Case Date: 11/19/2002
Court: 3rd District Appellate
Docket No: 3-01-0489 Rel

No. 3--01--0489

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit,
JAMES E. RYAN, Attorney General  ) Grundy County, Illinois
of the State of Illinois, and )
LANCE R. PETERSON, State's )
Attorney of Grundy County,  )
Illinois, )
)
              Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
)
              v. ) No. 96--CH--16
)
ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE )
RESOURCES, INC., a  )
Connecticut Corporation, )
)
             Defendant )
)
(UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE )
COMPANY, a foreign )
insurance company, and )
THE ESTATE OF FIORE F. )
D'ADDARIO,  ) Honorable
) Robert Marsaglia,
           Intervenors-Appellants). ) Judge, Presiding

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the Opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, the State of Illinois, requested a summarydetermination that the defendant, Environmental Waste Resources,Inc., (EWR) violated the closure and post-closure requirements ofits operating permit when it ceased operations at its facility inCoal City, Illinois. Intervenor United Pacific Insurance Company(United Pacific) requested a judicial determination of itsliability under its surety contract with EWR. The circuit courtfound that EWR was in violation of its permit. The court alsodetermined that under the surety contract, United Pacific couldeither pay the penal sum amount of the bond or perform theclosure and/or post-closure activities. The court stated that ifUnited Pacific chose to perform on the bond, it would be requiredto pay the entire costs of performance, even if those costsexceeded the bond amount.

The intervenors-appellants, United Pacific and the estate ofFiore F. D'Addario (estate), appeal. They contend that: (1) thecase is moot; (2) the State's claim was barred by the doctrine oflaches; (3) the finding regarding closure and post-closureactivities was made in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stayprovision of the U.S. Code (11 U.S.C.