Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy Oil Co.

Citation912 F. Supp. 238
Decision Date16 January 1996
Docket NumberNo. MO-95-CA-047.,MO-95-CA-047.
PartiesBITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION v. KENWORTHY OIL COMPANY.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

H. Michelle Caldwell, David J. Schubert, Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff.

Stephen Brannan, Odessa, TX, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 56

GUIROLA, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Bituminous Casualty Corporation ("Bituminous"), has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2201 complaint for declaratory judgment. Bituminous seeks judicial determination of their duty to defend and indemnify the insured, Kenworthy Oil Company ("Kenworthy") in a pending state court action. Before this Court is the Motion of Bituminous for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a). After consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant's reply, arguments of counsel and the pertinent legal authority, it is the opinion of the Court that Plaintiff's motion is well taken and should be granted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Between 1990 and 1995 Bituminous issued to Kenworthy five one-year commercial general liability insurance policies. In October of 1994 Kenworthy was included as a party defendant in a lawsuit filed in the 190th District Court, Harris County, Texas styled Robert B. Holt v. Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Cause No. 94-051183 ("Holt"). The dispute in the Holt lawsuit centers around allegations that the defendants have conducted oil and gas recovery operations in a manner which has resulted in the corruption of the underlying aquifer by residual pollutants. Kenworthy turned to Bituminous to commence its contractual obligations to defend and indemnify under the provisions of the insurance policy.

In the pending summary judgment motion, Bituminous contends that the policy's pollution exclusion endorsement relieves them of any obligation to defend or indemnify Kenworthy. Alternatively, Bituminous argues that the facts alleged in the underlying state court action do not constitute an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy.

DISCUSSION

FED.R.CIV.P. 56 permits any party to a civil action to move for a summary judgment upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery on file, together with any affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the movant carries its burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show that summary judgment should not be granted. Id. at 324-25, 106 S.Ct. at 2553-54. The non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in its pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured, Texas courts employ the "eight corners rule" or the "complaint allegation rule". Under this principle, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, and the duty to defend arises if the complaint thus construed asserts a claim facially within the coverage of the policy as reflected by its terms. Lafarge Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 61 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir.1995). The insurer may look solely at the pleadings without reference to facts outside the pleadings to make a determination of whether there is a duty to defend. American Alliance Insurance v. Frito Lay, 788 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990).

All of the insurance policies issued to Kenworthy by Bituminous contained a pollution exclusion endorsement. The endorsement provides:

This insurance does not apply to:

(1) Bodily injury or property damages arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants.
(2) Any loss, cost or expense arising out of any governmental direction or request that the named insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize pollutants.
Subparagraph (1) above does not apply to bodily injury or property damage caused by heat, smoke or fumes from a hostile fire. As used in this exclusion, a hostile fire means one which becomes uncontrollable, or breaks out from where it was intended to be.
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.
A reduction in the policy premium has been allowed for the attachment or this endorsement.

Pollution exclusion endorsements such as the one contained in the Bituminous policies have been characterized as "absolute" pollution exclusions. "Most courts which have examined the same or substantially similar absolute pollution exclusions have concluded that they are clear and unambiguous." National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc. 907 S.W.2d 517, 522 (Tex.1995) (citations omitted). The court in CBI held that the absolute pollution exclusion provisions at issue were "Clear and susceptible of only one possible interpretation ... there are no patent or latent ambiguities in the policies, ..." Id. at 522. One of these pollution exclusion clauses is essentially identical to the Bituminous pollution exclusion provisions.1 See also Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. St. Clair Lime Co., No. 94-6436, 1995 WL 632292 (10th Cir. Oct. 27, 1995) (holding that an identical pollution exclusion clause was unambiguous).

Bituminous contends that the factual allegations of the Holt lawsuit involve acts excepted by the pollution exclusion endorsement. Kenworthy counters that the Holt lawsuit alleges causes of action outside the pollution exclusion clause. Admittedly, the Holt lawsuit pleads negligence, trespass, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability, fraud, and breach of covenants within oil and gas leases or easements. However, the court must focus on the factual allegations that show the origin of the damages rather than on the legal theories alleged. Duncanville Diagnostic Center Inc., v. Atlantic Lloyd's Insurance Co. 875 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tex.App.—Eastland, 1994). See also Adamo v. State Farm Lloyds Co. 853 S.W.2d 673, 676 (Tex.App.—Houston 1993) (holding that the facts giving rise to the alleged actionable conduct determines coverage, not the cause of action alleged). The argument urged by Kenworthy was rejected in Northbrook Indemnity Insurance Co., v. Water District Management Company, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 170 (S.D.Tex.1995). The Northbrook court applied a "same nucleus of facts" test in determining whether to apply the policy's pollution exclusion provisions.

The fact that the underlying petitions allege various theories of liability, including negligence, does not change the nature of the precluded event. Because all of the underlying plaintiffs' alleged injuries arise out of the discharge, dispersal, release, or escape of pollutants, the absolute pollution exclusion operates to bar recovery of all of the Russell and Gilligan plaintiffs' claims. Id. at 175.

The Court has reviewed each of the factual allegations in the Holt complaint. When these factual allegations are distilled to their essence, it is clear that plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for past and future pollution of the underlying aquifer. Quoting from the Holt complaint:

"Defendants have conducted their operations in such a manner as to allow oil, produced water, injection water and other fluids used in their oil and gas operations to accumulate on the surface and in certain unlined pits so that the natural and inevitable result of their failure to adequately clean-up and remediate those pollutants and contaminants will be to either pollute or potentially pollute the underlying aquifer." See Original Petition, Robert B. Holt v. Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Cause No. 94-051183, ¶ II, p. 6 (Exhibit "A", to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment).
"To the extent that the oil and gas operations of the defendants, as set forth in
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Great Northern Nekoosa v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 8 d1 Abril d1 1996
    ...result of contaminated products, no coverage or duty to defend; no discussion of personal injury coverage); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy Oil Co., 912 F.Supp. 238 (W.D.Tex.1992) ("When these factual allegations are distilled to their essence, it is clear that plaintiff seeks recovery o......
  • Fed. Ins. Co. v. Northfield Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 22 d1 Setembro d1 2014
    ...will not "look outside the pleadings[] or imagine factual scenarios which might trigger coverage"); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy Oil Co., 912 F. Supp. 238, 240-41 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd, 105 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 1996) (construing similar pollution exclusion and holding that exclusion applie......
  • Resure, Inc. v. Chemical Distributors, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • 31 d5 Maio d5 1996
    ...(M.D.La. Dec. 27, 1995) (granting the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment). See also Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Kenworthy Oil Co., 912 F.Supp. 238, 240-41 (W.D.Tex.1996). 6 Pet. For Damages at 3, Buggage v. TMI Enters., Inc., No. 26066 (La. 18th 7 Pet. at 3, Kimble v. Safeway ......
  • United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Hydro Tank, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 15 d3 Agosto d3 2007
    ...(allegation of pollutant-related injury sufficient to trigger pollution exclusion clause); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy Oil Co., 912 F.Supp. 238, 241 (W.D.Tex.1996) Motiva's argument amounts to the converse of the policy language. Motiva claims that if any aspect of an allegation incl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT