X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Curtis and Deborah Turner suffered personal injury and property damage while driving in Lake Charles, La. The cause of the damages was exposure to a chemical, MDI. The chemical was being hauled on a truck in containers provided by Offshore Joint Services. MDI spilled because a lid and/or gasket on the container was damaged, worn and splitting and the lid could not be tightened properly. The Turners sued Offshore Joint Services and others for their injuries. Offshore Joint Services had a Commercial General Liability policy issued by Mid-Continent Casualty Co. Offshore notified Mid-Continent of the Turners’ suit. Initially, Mid-Continent denied coverage. Ultimately, Mid-Continent assumed defense of the suit brought by the Turners. That suit has been settled. Offshore brought this suit to recover its cost of defense prior to the time that Mid-Continent assumed the defense and settled the case. Mid-Continent asserted a policy exclusion as a defense to the duty to defend. If the exclusion is applicable, Mid-Continent had no duty to defend and is, therefore, not liable for the cost of defense incurred by Offshore. The issue was tried to the court. The trial court rendered judgment that the pollution exclusion applied, and, therefore, Mid-Continent was not liable for the cost of defense. Offshore appeals. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Mid-Continent’s defense against coverage rests entirely on the pollution exclusion clause of the general commercial policy. The policy dispute can be reduced to a determination of which of the following accurately describes the exclusion from coverage: This insurance does not apply to damages arising out of the escape of a chemical irritant which was transported by a covered person; This insurance does not apply to damages arising out of the escape of a chemical irritant which was transported as waste by a covered person. Because there is no dispute that the MDI that escaped out of Offshore’s container was a chemical raw material used to make other products, in essence it was not waste, and the description of the exclusion in II would not exclude coverage on the facts of this case. The critical question then is whether “as waste” when used in f(1)(c) applies to each act that precedes it in the list, or whether it applies only to the act of being “processed.” Applying the rules of construction to interpret the policy in favor of coverage and against the insurer, the court construes subparagraph (c) as limited to pollutants that are included within the definition of waste. Because it is undisputed that the chemical at issue in this case, MDI, was not waste, subparagraph (c) does not exclude coverage. The court holds that Mid-Continent was obligated to defend Offshore against the Turners’ claims. OPINION:Gray, CJ; Gray, Vance and Reyna, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.