Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County11/22/1993
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
No. S024390
1993.CA.40950 ; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467; 6 Cal. 4th 287; 861 P.2d 1153
Decided: November 22, 1993.
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; CANADIAN UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC005158, John Zebrowski, Judge.
Latham & Watkins, David L. Mulliken, Richard A. Conn, Jr., Kristine L. Wilkes, Donna J. Williams, Daniel E. Butcher and Michael G. Romey for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Peter W. Davis, Barry Ostrager, Coudert Brothers, Douglas L. Hallett, William M. Samoska, Manfried H. Stucki, Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, Charles I. Eisner, Alan E. Swerdlow, O'Melveny & Myers, Ralph W. Dau, H. Douglas Galt, Mindlin, Tigerman & Holtzman, Michael Holtzman, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, John Chesney, Richard T. Buchanan, Jeffrey A. Pott, Wilson, Kenna & Borys, Lawrence Borys, Jeffrey Burt, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields, & Younger, Marcus M. Kaufman, Adrienne F. Millican and Cheryl A. Orr for Real Parties in Interest.
Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger, Thomas J. Ready, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Christopher D. Cerf, Laura A. Foggan and William A. McGrath as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
Panelli
This declaratory relief action presents issues relating to the scope of a liability insurer's duty to defend its insured in an underlying third party lawsuit. The parties before us--carriers who issued comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies and the pesticide manufacturer to which the policies were sold--disagree on the proper use of extrinsic evidence in determining the scope of the defense duty and the nature of the parties' respective burdens on motions for summary adjudication of defense obligations. We conclude that evidence extrinsic to the underlying complaint can defeat as well as generate a defense duty, and that summary adjudication of the defense duty follows the same procedural rules as those applicable in any other type of litigation. Because the Court of Appeal correctly applied the law in this case, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
From 1947 to 1982, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California (Montrose) manufactured the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane (DDT) at its facility in Torrance, California. During the 1960's conservationists began to raise serious concerns about the effect of DDT on the environment (see, e.g., Carson, Silent Spring (1963)), and in 1972 the federal government prohibited its use within this country. Montrose continued to manufacture DDT for export at the Torrance facility until it closed the plan in 1982.
In 1990 the United States and the State of California sued Montrose in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. ยง 9607 et seq.) (CERCLA). (United States, et al, v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. (C.D.Cal.), 1990, No. CV 90-3122-AAH (JRx)).) The CERCLA action alleges that Montrose's operation of its Torrance facility caused environmental contamination that damaged land, water, and wildlife in the Los Angeles Harbor and neighboring waters. CERCLA imposes liability witho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|