Paul contended that applying the OCEAA definition of "suit" violated the Contracts Clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions because it would alter St.
Holding that the OCEAA definition of "suit" applied, the Ninth Circuit explained that for the communication between EPA and Anderson to be considered a "suit" under OCEAA there must be 1) an action, 2) against an insured, 3) that directs or requests the insured to take action, 4) in relation to a contaminated site within the state.