 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.2/28/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
This insurance coverage dispute concerns "pollution exclusion" clauses in comprehensive general liability policies issued to insured plaintiff Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet) with respect to property it occupied in Azusa, California. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of certain defendant-insurers, and Aerojet voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims against these defendants. Aerojet appeals from the ensuing judgment entered in favor of these defendants, collectively referred to herein as "the insurers": AIU Insurance Company; Allianz Underwriters, Inc.; Allstate Insurance Company (as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company); American Excess Insurance Company; Associated International Insurance Company; Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, with respect to certain policies issued through Cravens, Dargan & Company, Pacific Coast, as its Managing General Agent; Chicago Insurance Company; City Insurance Company; Evanston Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; First State Insurance Company; Gibraltar Casualty Company; Granite State Insurance Company; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company; Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company; Insurance Company of North America, in its own right, and Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North America; Landmark Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; New Hampshire Insurance Company; Old Republic Insurance Company; Protective National Insurance Company of Omaha; Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (formerly known as Aetna Casualty & Surety Company); and Twin City Fire Insurance Company.
Each of the insurers issued Aerojet an insurance policy containing a clause often referred to as a "qualified pollution exclusion," which excluded coverage for any claim arising out of pollution, unless the pollution occurred as the result of a "sudden and accidental" event. The parties agree the term "accidental" means unexpected and unintended. The parties dispute the meaning of "sudden," with the insurers arguing (consistent with California case law) that "sudden" requires an abrupt event, while Aerojet argues it can include gradual, unexpected and unintended pollution. Aerojet seeks coverage for claims involving pollution at its Azusa site. The trial court concluded there is no coverage because the pollution resulted from Aerojet's routine disposal activities, and there is no evidence to establish that any appreciable pollution occurred as a result of a sudden and accidental event. Thus, the qualified pollution exclusion eliminates any possibility of coverage.
We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The operative pleading is the first amended complaint filed February 10, 1997, which, together with a supplemental complaint filed November 5, 1998, alleged as follows:
On May 7, 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted action against Aerojet under federal law (42 U.S.C. ยง 9607) asserting there had been actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at or from property occupied by Aerojet in Azusa, California, and that Aerojet was responsible for investigations and remedial actions concerning not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|