Insurance claim for environmental damage may proceed in both Canadian and U.S. courts

A mining company in British Columbia that is suing its insurers for coverage in an environmental claim may have its case heard in both the U.S. and Canadian courts, opening up the possibility of conflicting rulings in different jurisdictions.
In Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Feb. 20 that proceedings in B.C. related to the insurance coverage matter could continue despite the assertion of jurisdiction by the U.S. District Court of the State of Washington.
The U.S. District Court ruled against the attempt by the insurers, Lloyd’s Underwriters and Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, to have the proceedings in the United States stayed (discontinued). The insurers argued, unsuccessfully, that the U.S. court was forum non conveniens (i.e. not the appropriate jurisdiction).
At the same time, the mining company, Teck Cominco Metals, asked both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal to stay the Canadian proceedings because, the company argued, the U.S. courts were the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the case.  
B.C.’s Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act lists a number of relevant factors to consider when determining the jurisdiction in which a case should be heard. The assertion of jurisdiction by a foreign court “is not an overriding and determinative factor in the…analysis,” the Supreme Court ruled, effectively refusing to stay the Canadian proceedings.
Teck sued its insurers in the United States for coverage related to environmental damage that is alleged to have occurred in the United States, downstream from Teck’s British Columbia smelter site.
Each party had taken steps to have the insurance coverage matter adjudicated in their preferred court.