 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America12/5/1995
ARMSTRONG, J.:
This appeal raises an issue regarding the scope of personal injury coverage in a policy of insurance issued to appellants Martin Marietta Corporation, Martin Marietta Carbon, Inc., and Martin Marietta Aluminum ("Martin Marietta") by respondent Insurance Company of North America ("INA"). Specifically, we are asked to determine whether policy language insuring Martin Marietta's liability for "wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right of private occupancy" provides coverage for specified actions, brought by a variety of governmental entities, which require, or seek to require, Martin Marietta to remediate groundwater and other contamination emanating from landfill and other sites. The trial court granted summary adjudication and judgment in favor of INA, after determining that under the policy there was no potential for coverage for the claims at issue, and that INA had no duty to defend or indemnify Martin Marietta. We reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In this action, Martin Marietta claimed insurance coverage from INA and many other of its liability insurers for actions brought against it by federal and state governmental entities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq. ("CERCLA"), the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 6001 et seq. ("RCRA") and similar statutes and theories. The actions related to the remediation of groundwater and other contamination emanating from a number of landfill and other sites. As to INA, Martin Marietta tendered claims regarding clean up orders and actions at seven sites: the Dalles, Oregon site; the Goldendale, Washington site; the Green River Disposal site; the Operating Industries, Inc. site; the Seymour Recycling site; the Commercial Oil Services, Inc. site; and the Stringfellow site.
The INA policy at issue covers the period from May 6, 1968 to November 6, 1972, and includes only automobile coverage and the personal injury coverage at issue here. The personal injury coverage provides that "INA will pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury to which this insurance applies . . . ."
Personal injury is defined as "(1) bodily injury, disability, shock, mental anguish and mental injury; (2) false arrest, detention or imprisonment, or malicious prosecution; (3) the publication or utterance of a libel or slander or of other defamatory material, including disparaging statements concerning the condition, value, quality or use of real or personal property, or a publication or utterance in violation of an individual's right of privacy, except when any of this foregoing part (3) arises out of the Named Insured's advertising activities; (4) wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right of private occupancy; (5) racial or religious discrimination, unless insurance therefor is prohibited by law, not committed by or at the direction of the Named Insured." (Emphasis added.)
INA moved for summary adjudication on the ground that the claims were not "because of personal injury," and that it thus had no duty to defend or indemnify Martin Marietta. Martin Marietta argued that there was a potential for coverage because "personal injury" is defined in the policy to include "wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right of private occupancy," and that there was thus a duty to defend. Martin Marietta argued, and argues, that under the quoted portion of definition the policy provides coverage for actions based on common law theories of trespass and nuisance, that the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|