East Quincy Services Dist. v. Continental Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-S-93-1163.,CIV-S-93-1163. |
Citation | 864 F. Supp. 976 |
Parties | EAST QUINCY SERVICES DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Blane A. Smith, Thompson & Heller, P.C., Sacramento, CA, for plaintiff.
Kevin G. McCurdy, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley, Wagner & Kane, Redwood City, CA, for defendant.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff East Quincy Services District ("the District") and defendant Continental Insurance Company ("Continental") bring cross-motions for summary judgment regarding Continental's duty to defend and indemnify the District under the terms of their insurance policies.
The District filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Continental must defend and indemnify the District in a Plumas County Superior Court action, Janet Laurie Joseph, et al. v. East Quincy Services District, Civ. No. 16034, and now moves for summary judgment on its claim. Continental denies coverage and seeks summary judgment in its favor.
For the reasons stated below, the court grants Continental's motion. The policy's Pollution Exclusion Endorsement bars coverage for claims of "bodily injury" and "property damage." "Personal injury" coverage is also barred by the pollution exclusion and because damage caused by pollution is not due to "eviction" or "wrongful entry."
This case involves a residential lot, previously owned by the District, that has been contaminated by E. coli and other bacteria, possibly from the septic tanks and leachfields of surrounding homes. The District first became aware of this problem on April 7, 1987, when the California Department of Health Services notified the District that the District's Well No. 6, which was located on the property, was contaminated with fecal coliform most likely originating from sewage. At that time, Health Services directed the District to cease using the well as a source of domestic water. (Sturm1 Letter of 4/6/87, McCurdy Aff.Supp.D.'s Mot.Summ.J., Ex. E.) Regarding future use of the well, the District was told to consider that (Id.)
In September 1988, the District's Board of Directors proposed rehabilitation of the well. Although Health Services did not direct the District to forego rehabilitation, the District was strongly advised against such a plan because:
(Sturm Letter of 9/19/88, Id., Ex. F.) Before Health Services would approve future use of the well, it would have to consider "how effectively the rehabilitation would exclude surface contaminants ..." (Id.) Based on this correspondence, the District abandoned its plan to rehabilitate the well, and the well was permanently sealed in February 1989.
The District sold the lot containing the sealed well to the Josephs on April 8, 1991. The Josephs placed a mobile home on the lot and installed a septic tank and leachfield system. They moved into their mobile home in July 1991. In their state court action, the Josephs allege that they became seriously ill in November 1991. After discovering that E. coli and other sewage-borne bacteria were the causes of their illnesses, the Josephs filed suit in Plumas County Superior Court.
The Josephs' complaint alleges causes of action for fraud (intentional or negligent misrepresentation); products liability (negligence and breach of implied and express warranty); intentional infliction of emotional distress; general negligence; and breach of contract.
The District purchased annual policies from Continental from July 1, 1988, through July 1, 1993. The District initially tendered its request for defense and indemnity in the Joseph matter in September 1992. Continental refused defense and indemnification on the grounds that the pollution exclusion applied and that personal injury was not covered. This action ensued.
The cross motions address both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. "The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify; an insurer may owe a duty to defend its insured in an action in which no damages are ultimately awarded." Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.4th 287, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 471, 861 P.2d 1153, 1157 (1993) (citing Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 4 Cal.4th 1076, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210, 213, 846 P.2d 792, 795 (1993)). Defense is required in any suit "which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy." Montrose, 24 Cal. Rptr.2d at 471, 861 P.2d at 1157 (quoting Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal.2d 263, 54 Cal.Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168 (1966) (emphasis in original)).2 Here, the District asserts that the claims brought against it by the Joseph family "potentially" seek damages covered by the policy. Continental argues that the District's claim is barred by the policy's pollution exclusion.3
Continental's policy provides coverage for bodily injury4 and property damage5 liability under Coverage A. There are a number of exclusions to coverage, including a "Pollution Exclusion Endorsement," which states:
This insurance does not apply to:
As used in this insurance:
At Coverage B, the policy provides coverage for "personal injury"6 caused by an "offense."7
Continental contends that it has no duty to defend against the Josephs' bodily injury and property damage claims because coverage is barred by the policy's Pollution Exclusion Endorsement. Continental bears the burden of proving the application of a policy exclusion both on its motion for summary judgment and at trial. See Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Whitaker, 181 Cal. App.3d 532, 226 Cal.Rptr. 435, 437 (1986). The District asserts that the exclusion is ambiguous and should be construed against the insurer, and that the exclusion does not apply on its terms.
The Pollution Exclusion Endorsement states that Continental will not cover bodily injury or property damage arising out of the "emission, discharge, dispersal, seepage, or migration ... of `pollutants' ... at or from any premises which is or was at any time owned or occupied by ... an insured." This language is clear and explicit, and expressly bars the Josephs' claims since they arise from pollution and contamination of the surface, the soil, or the groundwater by fecal coliform and other bacteria at the property.
Notwithstanding the clarity and expansiveness of the exclusion's language, the District contends that the language is ambiguous as applied to the circumstances here. First, the District suggests that the bacteria may not be "pollution" under the exclusion. But fecal coliform and other sewage-borne bacteria surely are "pollutants" under the policy because they are "solid, semi-solid, or liquid ... contaminants, including ... biologic and etiologic agents or materials ..."8 See p. 979, supra. See also Royal Ins. Co. v. Bithell, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 15103, *7 (E.D.Mich.1993) ().
Second, the District asserts that the exclusion does not clearly apply because the pollution originated off-site. But the exclusion applies when the pollution is "at" as well as "from" the site. There is no limiting language as to the origination of the pollution, and no one contests that the pollution here is "at" the site. The same argument advanced by the District has been resoundingly rejected as "sophistry" by the Fifth Circuit in Gregory v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 948 F.2d 203 (5th Cir.1991), and it is equally unpersuasive here.9 Cf. Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Aardvark Assoc., Inc., 942 F.2d 189, 194 (3rd Cir.1991) (). Accord United States Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. George W. Whitesides Co., Inc., 932 F.2d 1169, 1170 (6th Cir.1991); O'Brien Energy Sys., Inc. v. American Employers' Ins. Co., 427 Pa.Super. 456, 629 A.2d 957, 963 (1993); Powers Chemco, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 74 N.Y.2d 910, 549 N.Y.S.2d 650, 651, 548 N.E.2d 1301, 1302 (1989).
Finally, the District argues that the pollution exclusion does not apply or is ambiguous because the Josephs' claims do not depend on the movement of bacteria on the surface, in the soil, and in the groundwater, while the language of the pollution exclusion refers to the movement of pollutants. This argument is also unpersuasive. To begin with, the terms of the exclusion —"emission, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J. Josephson, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co.
...well water contamination because to so find "would render the pollution exclusion meaningless;" East Quincy Services District v. Continental Ins. Co., 864 F.Supp. 976, 980-82 (E.D.Cal.1994), where the court found no personal injury coverage for a groundwater pollution claim in the face of a......
-
MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exchange
...from manufacturing plant].) The same is true for federal cases applying California law. (See East Quincy Services District v. Continental Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal.1994) 864 F.Supp. 976, 979-980; Staefa Control-System, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (N.D.Cal.1994) 847 F.Supp. 1460, as am......
-
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, B084709
...Gregory, Jr. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. (5th Cir.1991) 948 F.2d 203, 209 [Louisiana law]; East Quincy Services District v. Continental Insurance Co. (E.D.Cal.1994) 864 F.Supp. 976, 980-982; and Houston General Ins. Co. v. AG Production Company (E.D.Cal.1993) 840 F.Supp 738, County of Col......
-
Bechtel Petroleum v. Continental Ins. Co.
...seepage, migration, release or escape" of such a substance, as described in the exclusion. (See East Quincy Services Dist. v. Continental Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal.1994) 864 F.Supp. 976, 980 [similar terms of pollution exclusion covered "every conceivable manner in which a person could experience e......
-
CHAPTER 8 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance—The Pollution Exclusions
...Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WL 249516 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2006); East Quincy Services District v. Continental Insurance Co., 864 F. Supp. 976 (E.D. Cal. 1994); Allen v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 307 F. Supp.2d 1170 (Haw. 2004). Tenth Circuit: Blackhawk-Central City Sanitation Dist......
-
Chapter 7
...Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WL 249516 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2006); East Quincy Services District v. Continental Insurance Co., 864 F. Supp. 976 (E.D. Cal. 1994); Allen v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 307 F. Supp.2d 1170 (Haw. 2004). Tenth Circuit: Blackhawk-Central City Sanitation Dist......
-
CHAPTER 3
...plant]. The same is true for federal cases applying California law. See East Quincy Services District v. Continental Ins. Co., 864 F. Supp. 976, 979-980 (E.D.Cal. 1994); Staefa Control-System, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 847 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D.Cal. 1994), as amended 875 F. Su......
-
Insurance - Bradley S. Wolff, Stephen L. Cotter, and Stephen M. Schatz
...Holland, No. 1:98-CV-774, 2000 WL 33679413, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2000) (chlorine gas); E. Quincy Servs. Dist. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 864 F. Supp. 976, 977, 979 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (e. coli and other sewage-borne bacteria); Larson v. Composting Concepts, Inc., No. A07-976, 2008 WL 2020489, at......