Steyer v. Westvaco Corp.
Decision Date | 20 March 1978 |
Docket Number | 72-453-M,Civ. A. No. 72-452-M,72-560-M and 73-731-M. |
Citation | 450 F. Supp. 384 |
Parties | Virgil T. STEYER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTVACO CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, and The Home Insurance Company, and Employers-Commercial Union Insurance Company of America, Third-Party Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard W. Emory and Paul F. Strain and Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., for Westvaco Corp.
Donald L. Merriman and Merriman, Crowther & Mann, Baltimore, Md., for Insurance Co. of North America.
Frank J. Vecella and Anderson, Coe & King, Baltimore, Md., for The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.
Alva P. Weaver, III, Baltimore, Md., and John P. Arness and Edward F. Glynn, Jr., and Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for The Home Insurance Company.
Donald C. Allen and Robert L. Ferguson, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for Employers-Commercial Union Ins. Co. of America.
The question presented in these third-party actions is whether Westvaco Corporation, a defendant in the original suits claiming damages for air pollution, or its insurance companies, third-party defendants, will bear (1) Westvaco's defense costs, allegedly $373,232.55, in defending against the original suits, and (2) Westvaco's costs and expenses in litigating its claim against the insurance companies for reimbursement of those costs.1
Westvaco originally filed a third-party complaint and supplements against four insurance companies: Hartford, Employers-Commercial Union, I.N.A., and Home.See Papers 12, 59, 61, 180, 181, and 183.
Approximately 29 answers have been filed by the insurance companies to the various complaints, amended complaints and supplemental complaints.
Motions to dismiss the third-party complaint of Westvaco were filed by Hartford (Paper 18), by Employers (Paper 19, 211-214), by I.N.A. (Paper 20), and by Home (Paper 23).An opposition was filed by Westvaco (Paper 24).
The motion to dismiss on behalf of Employers-Commercial Union Insurance Co. was granted (Paper 217, Sept. 15, 1975), and Employers is no longer active in this litigation.
The other motions to dismiss the third-party complaint were, with the consent of counsel, declared moot.See Paper 26.
A motion for summary judgment against Westvaco has been filed by the Home Insurance Co.(Papers 200, 248, 250, 202); it has been opposed by Westvaco (Papers 201, 249).
A second motion for summary judgment against Westvaco was filed by I.N.A. (Paper 251); a hearing was requested by Westvaco (Paper 252), but no other memoranda were filed.
A motion for summary judgment in favor of Westvaco against Hartford Insurance Co. was filed (Paper 216) and opposed by Hartford (Papers 246, 247, 253).
The merits of these motions will be discussed below.
Initially, the insured Westvaco filed Rule 36Requests for Admissions against its insurance companies (Paper 186).Formal responses were eventually2 filed by Hartford (Paper 204), I.N.A. (Paper 205), and Home (Paper 203).
A motion was filed by Westvaco (Paper 207) to determine the sufficiency of those formal responses.At a conference on May 12, 1975, the insurance companies were ordered to designate with particularity the relevant provisions of their respective insurance policies.Such designations were made for Hartford by its letter of May 26, 1975(Attachment A); for I.N.A. by its letters of May 21 and 27, 1975(Attachment B); and for Home by its letter of May 22, 1975(Attachment C).The court will treat these letters as supplemental responses by the parties to the requests of Westvaco Corporation for admissions, and the clerk shall file the letters as Attachments to this Memorandum and Order.
Also at the May 12, 1975, conference, the insurance companies' counsel were instructed to indicate the type of factual evidence that they desired to offer on the issues of liability.Such indications were made for Hartford by letter of June 9, 1975(Attachment D); for I.N.A. by letter of June 5, 1975(Attachment E); and for Home by letter of June 6, 1975(Attachment F).A response was made for Westvaco by letters of June 16 and 20, 1975(Attachment G).These letters shall be filed as Attachments also.
At a conference on June 23, 1975, the insurance companies' counsel were instructed to summarize their expert testimony in accord with Rule 26(b)(4).Such a summary was submitted for Hartford by letter of September 8, 1975(Attachment H), and for I.N.A. by letter of September 8, 1975(Attachment I).It appears that no summary was submitted for Home.A reply was made for Westvaco by letter of September 11, 1975(Attachment J).These letters shall also be filed as Attachments.
Finally, at the June 23, 1975, conference counsel were promised a court interpretation of the policy provision "occurrence" to guide further action in the cases.
On July 10, 1975(Paper 215), this court ruled on the meaning of the term "occurrence" in the insurance policies of Hartford, I.N.A., and Home.That Memorandum states:
SeeGrand River Lime Co. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.,32 Ohio App.2d 178, 289 N.E.2d 360, 364-65(1975);Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp.,256 F.Supp. 145, 149-50(D.Ore.1966);McGeough, The Applicability of Liability Insurance Coverage to Actions Involving Environmental Damage, 1971 A.B.A. Section on Ins., Neg. & Comp. Law Proceedings 312, 318-19 (1971).Cf.Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana, Inc. v. Till,207 F.Supp. 50, 55-59(N.D.Miss.1962).
The task now before the court is to apply the definition of "occurrence" to the three pending motions for summary judgment.Preliminarily, the court will review the law governing an insurance company's duty to defend its insured.3
An insurance company's duty to defend is separate and distinct from the company's duty to pay a resulting judgment.See, e. g., Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hendrix,199 F.2d 53(4th Cir.1952);Riviera Beach Volunteer Fire Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y.,388 F.Supp. 1114, 1120(D.Md.1975);Kelly v. Phoenix Assurance Co.,225 F.Supp. 562, 564 n.3(D.Md.1964);7A J.A.Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice§ 4682 (1962 ed.) hereinafter Appleman; Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 458(1956).The company's preliminary duty to defend and its ultimate duty to pay a judgment are related in that both in the last analysis depend on the scope of coverage under the policy.Seeid.
In order to determine whether the insurer has a duty to defend a suit against the insured, the insurance policy provisions governing coverage and the duty to defend must generally be compared to the allegations of the complaint against the insured.SeeHendrix, supra;Riviera Beach, supra;Appleman§ 4683; Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 458(1956).In contrast, the question whether the insurer has a duty to pay a final judgment against the insured turns on a comparison of the ultimate findings of fact concerning the alleged occurrence with the policy coverage.SeeAmerican Casualty Co. v. Denmark Foods, Inc.,224 F.2d 461, 464(4th Cir.1955).
Once it is determined that the insurance policy creates a duty to defend against claims made within the policy's coverage and it is further determined that the complaint alleges a cause of action within the policy's coverage, the company is obligated to defend the suit, notwithstanding alternative allegations outside the policy's coverage, until such time, if ever, that the claims have been limited to ones outside the policy coverage.See, e. g., Brohawn v. Transamerica Ins. Co.,276 Md. 396, 347 A.2d 842(1975)(implicit);Hendrix,199 F.2d at 56-57;Bundy Tubing Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.,298 F.2d 151, 154(6th Cir.1962).
Third-partyplainti...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
J. Aron and Co., Inc. v. Service Transp. Co.
...(W.D.Ark.1958); Heaton v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.S.C.1954) — or have only cited to decisions which themselves had relied on Erie, see Hackler v. Indianapolis & Southeastern Trailways Inc., 437 F.2d 360 (6th Cir. 1971);
Steyer v. Westvaco Corp., 450 F.Supp. 384 (D.Md.1978); Travelers Corp. v. Boyer, 301 F.Supp. 1396 If there has been a spell cast by these Erie incantations, however, it has produced more befuddlement than enchantment.... -
Usaa Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mummert
...permissible." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Atwood, 319 Md. 247, 253, 572 A.2d 154 (1990). An insurance company's duty to pay a resulting judgment is separate and distinct from the company's duty to defend. See, e.g.,
Steyer v. Westvaco Corp., 450 F.Supp. 384, 389 (D.Md.1978); Riviera Beach Volunteer Fire Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 388 F.Supp. 1114, 1120 (D.Md. 1975). Generally, the question of whether a company must indemnify "turns on a comparison of the ultimate findings ofconcerning the alleged occurrence with the policy coverage." Steyer, 450 F.Supp. at 389 (citation omitted). However, even if a case settles before its final adjudication, ultimately, a company's duty to pay a judgment "depend[s] on the scope of coverage under the policy." Id.The interpretation of a written contract ordinarily is a question of law for the court. Auction & Estate Representatives, Inc. v. Ashton, 354 Md. 333, 341, 731 A.2d 441 (1999). Where the languageof N.Y., 388 F.Supp. 1114, 1120 (D.Md. 1975). Generally, the question of whether a company must indemnify "turns on a comparison of the ultimate findings of fact concerning the alleged occurrence with the policy coverage." Steyer, 450 F.Supp. at 389(citation omitted). However, even if a case settles before its final adjudication, ultimately, a company's duty to pay a judgment "depend[s] on the scope of coverage under the policy." Id. The interpretation of a written... -
CPS Chemical Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.
...Exclusion Similarly, the "products hazard" exclusion is inapplicable to this type of pollution case. The majority of courts define "products" as the goods or services which the insured deals in as his stock-in-trade.
Steyer v. Westvaco Corp. 450 F.Supp. 384 (D.Maryland 1978). Industrial wastes not intended for consumption, sale, or use by others are not "products" in the view of this court, nor would a reading of the policy reasonably indicate that they were so intended by the The Pollution... -
Mraz v. American Universal Ins. Co.
...and the resulting damage constitute an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy. The occurrence provision and similar policy language has been interpreted to apply to allegations of environmental damage, see
Steyer v. Westvaco Corp., 450 F.Supp. 384 (D.Md.1978)(alleged air pollution damage to a Christmas tree farm). Other courts have held that unlawful dumping of hazardous wastes are "occurrences" in the context of CERCLA cost recovery actions, if the resulting damage was unintendedusual business, and thus was not an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy. The Court obviously rested its decision on a holding that the dumping itself must have been accidental for the injury to be an "occurrence." However, Steyer v. Westvaco, stated: "it is the opinion of this court that the words `unexpected or unintended' or words of similar import with respect to the definition of `occurrence' do not refer to unknown, unexpected, or unintended emissions from the Westvacoprovision. This argument ignores the fact that the "completed operations" provision is meant to mean the same thing for a service company that a "products liability" provision would mean for a manufacturing company, see Steyer v. Westvaco Corp., 450 F.Supp. at 394, n. 10, CPS Chemical, 489 A.2d at 1270, and to refer to liability stemming from the services, materials, or structures which the insured introduces into the marketplace. The burial of these drums at the Leslie site...
-
8.5.1 Occurrence
...477 N.E.2d 1227, 1233 (1984) (although the polluter intended to store chemicals in drums (the "act"), the leakage of those chemicals was an "occurrence" because the damage was not expected or intended); Steyer v. West Vaco Corp,
450 F. Supp. 384(D. Md. 1978) (term "occurrence" does not refer to unknown, unexpected, or unintended emissions from the plant, but, instead, refers to unknown, unexpected, and unintended damage). [249]604 F. Supp. 1052, 1059 (8th Cir.... -
CHAPTER 10 ISSUES IN INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
...unintended. *** [I]t is quite questionable whether [the insured] expected or intended the damaging results to the property owners, at least in the sense that the policy uses such terms. Id. at 365. See also, Steyer v. Westvaco Corp.,
450 F. Supp. 384, 388 (D. Md. 1978) (the words "unexpected or unintended" do not refer to emissions but rather to damage of the type complained of by plaintiffs). B. The Standard of Measuring the Insured's Expectations The issue of whether the insured... -
2.2.1 Refusal To Defend
...780 (9th Cir. 1979); Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1970); C. Raymond Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 467 F. Supp. 17 (E.D. Pa. 1979); Steyer v. Westvaco Corp.,
450 F. Supp. 384(D. Md. 1978). The court also cited 7C J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice Sec. 4684.01 at 102-07 (Berdal ed. 1979); Comment, The Insurer's Duty to Defend Under a Liability Insurance Policy, 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 734 (1966);...