 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quadrant Corp. v. American States Insurance Co.9/22/2003
In this insurance coverage case, The Quadrant Corporation, Equity Residential Properties Trust, and Roy Street Associates (collectively Insureds) appeal from summary judgment dismissal of their complaint against American States Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (collectively Insurers). The Insureds sought coverage for injuries suffered by a tenant when fumes from a liquid waterproofing material used by a company they hired entered the tenant's unit and caused personal injury and property damage. At issue is whether the policies' pollution exclusions preclude coverage. Because the underlying injury and cause of action are the result of a pollutant acting as a pollutant, as opposed to a claim that is rooted in negligence, the exclusions apply. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
The relevant facts are not in dispute the parties stipulated to them. The underlying claim involves allegations by Delores Kaczor, a tenant in an apartment building owned by the Insureds. Kaczor suffered personal injuries and property damage by exposure to toxic fumes emitted by a liquid waterproofing sealant applied by a contractor, Pacific Restoration and Waterproofing Inc., which was doing repair work on the building. The fumes entered Kaczor's unit as the waterproofing material dried.
The underlying claim was brought in two separate but related liability lawsuits against the Insureds. Both suits involved claims by or on behalf of Kaczor alleging the Insureds, through their contractor, were negligent in applying the weatherproofing solution and in failing to warn the tenant of its danger.
The Insurers denied coverage for the claim. In April 2002, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The cross-motions raised a single issue: whether coverage was precluded by the policies' pollution exclusions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurers, ruling that the policies did not cover the loss because the pollution exclusions precluded coverage.
There are two insurance policies at issue. Both are comprehensive general liability policies that contain essentially the same language. They exclude damage caused by pollutants. The American States policy provides in relevant part:
This insurance does not apply to:
f. Pollution
(1) 'Bodily injury' or 'property damage' arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants{.}
For purposes of this exclusion, the policy contains the following definition:
Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.
The State Farm policy exclusion provides in relevant part:
Under Coverage L, this insurance does not apply:
6. to any:
(a) bodily injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, seepage, migration, dispersal, spill, release or escape of pollutants{.}
For purposes of this exclusion, the policy defines pollution as:
{P}ollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed{.}
The Insureds assert the exclusions do not apply to these facts.
DISCUSSION
The trial court dismissed the Insureds' claim against the Insurers und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|