Document DMaGq2p7dXnD7oOpMxr1543Bn

period, on October 23, 1989, Plaintiffs notified defendant Abex, in writing, of Plaintiffs' belief that underground landfills at the Orzinuovi plant might expose them to liability, thereby constituting a material breach by Defendants ofrepresentations and warranties under the 1989 purchase agreement See Defs' Supplemental 56 1 Statement, Ex 1 In the letter, Plaintiffs stated "While such waste disposal may or may not be partially covered by some official permit, it appears that at least a significant portion of the waste disposal on the Orzinuovi premises is not covered by any license or permit whatsoever" Id The letter also explained "We are currently m the process of investigating and inspecting the nature and scope ofthe waste disposal site as well as its legality " Id *4 Plaintiff Frendo first notified Italian authorities about the landfills in an October 2, 1991 letter proposing a landfill removal project as part of a plan to modernize and expand the Orzinuovi plant and to comply with the dictates of an environmental policy recently prepared by Frendo's new management See Roberts Aff, ^ 9, Ex H This letter made no reference to a violation of law as the reason for the project and came more than two years after the indemnity demand asserted against Defendants All ofFrendo's subsequent correspondence with Italian authorities likewise contained no mention of a violation of law as the impetus for the removal project See id Ex H On January 23, 1993, the Mayor of Orzinuovi issued an order relating to the removal of the landfills at the Frendo plant See Coccia Decl, Tab R Discussion I Summary Judgment Standards This Court may grant summary judgment only if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact See Silver v City Umv of New York, 947 F 2d 1021, 1022 f2d Cir 1991). Montana v First Fed Sav & Loan Ass'n, 869 F 2d 100,103 (2dCir \9&9\ Knight v U S Fire Insur Co. 804 F 2d 9. 11 (2d Cir 1986) The role of the Court on such a motion "is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried, while resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences against the moving party " Knight, 804 F 2d at 11. see also First Fed. Sav &LoanAss'n. 869 F 2d at 103 (stating that to resolve a summaryjudgment motion properly, a court must conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party) The movant bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those Page 4 portions of the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions to file, together with affidavits, if any," that show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact Celotex Corp v Catrett, All US 317. 322 (1986) If the movant meets this initial burden, the party opposing the motion must then demonstrate that there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts See id, Silver, 947 F 2d at 1022 The opposing party may not solely rely on its pleadings, on conclusory factual allegations, or on conjecture as to the facts that discovery might disclose See Gray v Darien 927 F 2d 69, 74 (2d Cir 1991) Rather, the opposing party must present specific evidence supporting its contention that there is a genuine material issue of fact See Celotex Corp .477 US at 324.Twin Lab Inc v Weider Health & Fitness. 900 F 2d 566. 568 f2d Cir 19901 To show such a "genuine dispute," the opposing party must come forward with enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict m its favor See Anderson v Liberty Lobby. Inc. 477 U S 242. 248 (1986). Matsushita Elec Indus Co v Zenith Radio Corp, 475 US 574. 586-87 (1986), Cinema North Corp v Plaza at Latham Assocs. 867 F 2d 135. 138 (2d Cir 1989) If "the party opposing summary judgment propounds a reasonable conflicting interpretation of a material disputed fact," then summaryjudgment must be denied Sobering Corp v Home Ins Co. 712 F 2d 4. 9-10 (2d Cir 19831 The Court will analyze the summaryjudgment motions in accordance with these principles II Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment *5 In May 1993, Plaintiffs brought this diversity action asserting contractual indemnification claims against Defendants for the cost of the landfill removal project at the Orzinuovi plant fFN61 Plaintiffs move for summaryjudgment on their indemnity claims, arguing that no genuine issues of material fact exist Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that they deserve summary judgment against Defendants because the remaining material facts in this case have been significantly narrowed as a result ofDefendants' alleged failure to defend against claims potentially within the scope of the duty to indemnify FN6, Plaintiffs claim damages for the cost of the investigation and remediation of landfills at the Orzinuovi plant in the amount of the U S dollar equivalent of approximately DM 3,850,743 52 and Lira 21,268,488,677 See Pis' Notice of Mot at 3 Copr West 2003 No Claim to Orig U S Govt Works