The ruling also provides about $54 million in defense costs, Horkovich adds.

Simple addition concludes the total amount to be received from insurers is far less than the total cost of the cleanup, but Horkovich says the ruling is far-reaching.

“It fully clarifies how much insurance is available,” he says. Many eyes were on this case, Horkovich notes, because it provides a precedent for other long-tail insurance cases such as those involving asbestos and other toxic sites.

In similar California cases, determining damages has been confused by complex calculations with liability insurers to determine when property damage and bodily injury occurred in order to assess payment pro-rata—according to what the policy covered during a specific time period.

“It was so difficult to ascertain damages for each year,” Horkovich says. “Now you don't have to.”

That's because the ruling says insurers must pay for all damages up to the policy limits even if the damages happened before or after the policy was in effect. Additionally, an insured can stack policies over multiple years.

“This is certainly far from an insurer-friendly decision,” observes Michael L. Zigelman, a partner with Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo. “It creates an 'uber-policy,' with the maximum amount of insurance available to the state.”

However, he says, the state Supreme Court ruled insurers can limit exposure by including anti-stacking language in policies—something the industry has done since the mid-1980s.