An insurer, Chubb Custom Insurance Company, sought recovery of insurance payments made to its insured, the defendant, Space Systems/Loral, Inc., for environmental response costs incurred from cleaning up pollutants. The plaintiff insurer sought this recovery by asserting claims of CERCLA. The district court held that the insurer lacked standing to sue because it had not become statutorily liable for response costs under CERCLA. The district court dismissed the insurer's claim of CERCLA, and the plaintiff insurer appealed. Do you agree with the decision of the district court? Why or why not? Do you think the appellate court affirmed or reversed the decision of the district court? Why? Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/ Loral, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013).