New Castle County v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 89-3814,90-3012 and 90-3030,s. 89-3814 |
| Citation | 933 F.2d 1162 |
| Parties | , 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1181, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,153 NEW CASTLE COUNTY, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Connecticut, Home Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New Hampshire, Continental Casualty Company, a corporation of the State of Illinois, United States Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New York, Insurance Company of North America, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, Continental Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New Hampshire, United States Liability Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, National Union Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of Minnesota, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a corporation of the State of Connecticut, and Zurich Insurance Company, a Swiss corporation Continental Casualty Company ("CNA'), Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Arthur Makadon (argued), David L. Cohen, Geoffrey A. Kahn, Walter M. Einhorn, Jr., Gilpin W. Bartels, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., John G. Mulford, Michael J. Goodrick, Theisen, Lank, Mulford and Goldberg, P.A., Wilmington, Del., for CNA, appellant.
Joseph D. Tydings (argued), Jerold Oshinsky, Catherine Serafin Sponseller, Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky, Washington, D.C., George H. Seitz, III, Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol and Schnee, Wilmington, Del., for New Castle County, appellee.
Clifford B. Hendler (argued), John I. Stewart, Jr., Scott L. Winkelman, William D. Wallace, Crowell & Moring, Dennis M. Flannery, A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., for Insurance Co. of North America, appellee.
William J. Cattie, III, Heckler & Cattie, Wilmington, Del., Edward B. Deutsch, Laurence M. McHeffey, Loren L. Pierce, McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney, Morristown, N.J., for U.S. Fire Ins. Co., appellee.
Gary W. Aber, Heiman, Aber & Goldlust, Wilmington, Del., James E. Rocap, III, Thomas B. Carr, D. Bradley Clements, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D.C., for Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., appellees.
Dennis D. Ferri, Michael A. Pedicone, Dennis D. Ferri, P.A., Wilmington, Del., Philip A. Ryan, German, Gallagher & Murtagh, Philadelphia, Pa., for U.S. Liability Ins. Co., appellee.
Norman M. Monhait, Morris, Rosenthal, Monhait & Gross, P.A., Wilmington, Del., Roger E. Warin, Virginia L. White-Mahaffey, Anita G. Raby, Janet W. Steverson-Wright, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C., for The Home Ins. Co., appellee.
Alfred J. Kuffler, Michael B. McCauley, Stephen M. Calder, Kevin G. O'Donovan, David R. Kunz, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for John Richard Ludbrooke Youell, amicus curiae.
Charles M. Oberly, III, Atty. Gen., State of Del., Robert S. Kuehl, Stuart B. Drowos, Deputy Attys. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, Del., for State of Del., amicus curiae.
Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Atty. Gen., Com. of Pa., Harrisburg, Pa., for Commonwealth of Pa., amicus curiae.
Bert W. Rein, Thomas W. Brunner, Sharon Rau Dissinger, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., for Insurance Environmental Litigation Ass'n, amicus curiae.
William H. Allen, William F. Greaney, Martin Wald, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., ICI Americas, Inc., Intern. Business Machines Corp., Olin Corp., The American Petroleum Institute, and The Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n, amici curiae.
Before BECKER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge, Court of International Trade. *
OPINION OF THE COURT
----------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Introduction 1167
II. Facts and Procedural History 1169
A. PreOperation Events 1170
B. The County's Operation of the Tybouts Corner Landfill 1171
C. PostOperation Events 1171
D. The Three Underlying Lawsuits Against the County 1173
E. The Insurance Coverage Litigation 1173
F. The Significant PostTrial Events 1174
III. Appellate Jurisdiction 1176
A. Appeal Number 893814 1176
1. The Rule 59(e) Versus Rule 60(b) Issue 1176
2. The Jurisdictional Effect of CNA's CrossClaims 1177
B. Appeal Number 903030 1179
IV. The Insurance Coverage Issues 1180
A. Preliminary Matters 1180
1. CNA's Contracts of Insurance 1180
2. The Burden of Proof in Insurance Cases 1181
3. The Interpretation of Insurance Policies Under 1182
Delaware Law
4. The Issues on Appeal 1183
5. Our Scope of Review 1183
B. The "As Damages" 1184
Clause
1. Background 1184
2. CNA's Contentions on Appeal 1185
3. The County's Response 1187
4. Legal, Technical Meaning or Plain, Ordinary 1188
Meaning?
C. The "Occurrence" Clause 1191
D. The 1192
"Pollution
Exclusion"
Clause
1. The Meaning of the Word "Sudden" 1193
a. The significance of multiple dictionary 1193
definitions
b. The rule that all words in a policy should 1194
be given effect
c. The existence of judicial disagreement 1195
d. The drafting and marketing history of the 1196
pollution exclusion clause
e. Conclusion 1198
2. The Damage/Discharge Distinction 1199
a. The case law 1200
b. The history of the pollution exclusion: 1201
does it shed any light on the import of
the damage/discharge distinction?
c. The economic rationale underlying the 1202
damage/discharge distinction
d. Evidence suggesting that the discharge of 1202
leachate from Tybouts Corner was not
unexpected
e. Conclusion 1203
V. CNA's CrossClaims 1203
A. The Timeliness of CNA's CrossClaims Under the Parties' 1203
February 1986 Stipulation
B. The "Settlement Bar" Issue 1205
VI. Conclusion 1207
----------
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
These consolidated appeals present important questions about the meaning of the "pollution exclusion" and "as damages" clauses found in post-1970 comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance policies. These issues frequently recur in cases involving insurance coverage of environmental damage caused by the discharge of pollutants--a genre of litigation that has become a staple of many federal courts' dockets.
The standard CGL policy provides coverage for "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage ... caused by an occurrence." 1 An "occurrence" is an "accident" that, during the policy period, results in damage "neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." The standard CGL policy also contains an exclusionary clause, known as the "pollution exclusion," which disclaims coverage "for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape" of pollutants. This exclusion, however, is not absolute; it contains an exception providing for coverage where the bodily injury or property damage results from a "discharge" of pollutants that is "sudden and accidental."
These appeals arise from a declaratory judgment action brought in 1985 by New Castle County, Delaware (the "County") in the district court for the District of Delaware against twelve insurance companies that had issued CGL policies to the County. 2 The County sought a declaration of the carriers' duties under their respective policies to defend and indemnify it in three underlying lawsuits. These suits originated from the County's operation of and the discharge of pollutants from the Tybouts Corner landfill, which served from 1969 until 1971 as the County's primary location for the disposal of solid wastes. The three underlying lawsuits allege, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent Petrochemical v. Aetna Cas. and Sur., Civ. A. No. 83-3347.
...v. Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co., 962 F.2d 77 (1st Cir.1992) (also construing New Jersey law); New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 933 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir.1991) (construing Delaware 9 Aetna, 968 F.2d at 710. 10 E.g. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty v. Belleville Indus., Inc., ......
-
Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Corp.
...However, as noted in New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., dictionaries are "imperfect yardsticks of ambiguity." 933 F.2d at 1193-94. Our duty is to determine whether the word "sudden" is ambiguous in the context of the specific insurance policy at The use of the word "sud......
-
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
...Office (ISO), changed the standard policy from an "accident-based" to an "occurrence-based" format. (Ibid; New Castle County v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. (1991) 933 F.2d 1162, 1181; Pasich, Insurance Coverage for Environmental Claims (Jan.1989) L.A.Law., at p. 23, fn. 12.) 14 The insuran......
-
Morton Intern., Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America
...London v. Independent Petrochemical Corp., --- U.S. 1777, 112 S.Ct. 1777, 118 L.Ed.2d 435 (1992); New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1184-91 (3d Cir.1991) (applying Delaware law), on remand, 778 F.Supp. 812 (D.Del.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 970 F.2d 1267......
-
CHAPTER 8
...of contaminant damaged neighboring property, or at what rate the contamination spread”), aff’d and rev’d in part on other grounds, 933 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir. 1991); Abraham, supra, at 120 (“Given the progressive nature of the environmental harms in question, finding the facts necessary [to hold......
-
Chapter Six
...interpretation,” included government imposed hazardous waste cleanup costs); New Castle Cty. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1188 (3d Cir. 1991) (applying Delaware law; “ordinary, usual meaning” of “damages” included “response costs and other equitable relief”); abrogated ......
-
Chapter 5
...cert. denied 496 U.S. 906 (1990) (applying New York law). Third Circuit: New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1184–1191 (3d Cir.1991) (applying Delaware law); Township of Gloucester v. Maryland Casualty Co., 668 F. Supp. 394, 400 (D.N.J. 1987) (applying New......
-
Insurance Recovery for Environmental Liabilities
...(5th Cir. 1996) (under Texas law, CERCLA response costs are damages); New Castle County 220 CHAPTER 4 v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1190 (3d Cir. 1991) (under Delaware law, the ordinary meaning of the term “damages” does not distinguish between legal and equitable remedi......