From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powers Chemco, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 21, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. 1989)

Summary

alleging " `burying drums containing the wastes,' `dumping waste liquids from 55-gallon drums into open pits and then disposing of the drums in the pit,' and discharging `wastes through a pipe into pits at the site'"

Summary of this case from State of N.Y. v. Blank

Opinion

Argued October 18, 1989

Decided November 21, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, James J. Brucia, J.

George Berger, Judith S. Roth, Emery M. Schweig and David B. Schacher for appellant.

David A. Schulz, John J. Sheehy, Nancy A. Brown and Jane F. Golden for respondent.

Paul R. Koepff, Thomas W. Brunner, James M. Johnstone and John W. Cavilia for Insurance Environmental Litigation Association, amicus curiae.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

This appeal involves a general comprehensive liability insurance policy containing the same "pollution exclusion" clause, and the same exception for "sudden and accidental" dispersals, that we construed in Technicon Elecs. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co. ( 74 N.Y.2d 66). In Technicon, we noted that the exception to the exclusion for liability arising from pollution is not operative unless the occurrence in question was both "sudden" and "accidental" (id., at 75).

Plaintiff here is seeking a declaration that defendant insurer is obligated to pay "all expenses which plaintiff has paid or will have to pay" in connection with a consent order issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation to decontaminate and restore its property. The action arose out of the leaching of hazardous wastes which were allegedly disposed by plaintiff's predecessor's: (1) "burying drums containing the wastes," (2) "dumping waste liquids from 55-gallon drums into open pits and then disposing of the drums in the pit," and (3) discharging "wastes through a pipe into pits at the site." In other words, plaintiff seeks to be indemnified for intentional discharges of waste, leading to the ultimate pollution of the environment. Such an "occurrence," resulting from purposeful conduct, cannot be considered "accidental" under our analysis in Technicon (id.).

We also reject plaintiff's contention that since it was not the actual polluter, but merely inherited the problem from the prior landowner, the pollution exclusion clause cannot bar its present insurance claim. Simply put, there is nothing in the language of the pollution exclusion clause to suggest that it is not applicable when liability is premised on the conduct of someone other than the insured. Plaintiff's reliance on Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ( 34 N.Y.2d 356) is misplaced, since the analysis in that case depended both on a potential ambiguity in the terms of the policy and the conclusion that the insurer's contrary construction would all but negate the coverage offered by the policy as a whole. Neither of these concerns is presented in this case. As we noted in Technicon, the exclusion clause is "unambiguously plain and operative" ( 74 N.Y.2d, at 71), and represents only a single discrete exception to the insurer's obligation to indemnify under the policy.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Powers Chemco, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 21, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. 1989)

alleging " `burying drums containing the wastes,' `dumping waste liquids from 55-gallon drums into open pits and then disposing of the drums in the pit,' and discharging `wastes through a pipe into pits at the site'"

Summary of this case from State of N.Y. v. Blank

noting that pollution damage, "resulting from purposeful conduct, cannot be considered `accidental'"

Summary of this case from Ogden Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co.

In Powers Chemco the underlying complaint alleged that the insured's predecessor buried, dumped and discharged pollutants into the environment.

Summary of this case from Ead Metallurgical, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

In Powers Chemco the New York Court of Appeals held that the defendant insurer was not obligated to indemnify the plaintiff for cleanup expenses associated with its decontamination of property purchased from a party who had allegedly buried, dumped and discharged hazardous wastes onto the property because such damage fell within the coverage exclusion for pollution damage that was not "sudden" and "accidental."

Summary of this case from Avondale Industries, Inc. v. Travelers Indem

In Powers Chemco, the plaintiff seeking indemnification by the defendant insurer, by entering into an interim consent decree with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to decontaminate the property, effectively admitted that the prior landowner had engaged in intentional conduct that caused the pollution damage at issue.

Summary of this case from Avondale Industries, Inc. v. Travelers Indem

In Powers Chemco, the court held that the pollution exclusion barred coverage even though the contamination alleged in the complaint was the result of discharges by a previous owner of the property.

Summary of this case from Town of Union, N.Y. v. Travelers Indem. Co.

In Powers Chemco, the insured entered into a consent decree agreeing to clean up property polluted by a former landowner.

Summary of this case from Claussen v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

In Powers Chemco the New York Court of Appeals addressed the argument that the pollution exclusion clause only applies to actual, as opposed to innocent, polluters.

Summary of this case from State of N.Y. v. Blank

In Powers Chemco, however, the insured's predecessor (as opposed to the insured itself) was alleged to have buried, dumped, and discharged pollutants into the environment.

Summary of this case from New York v. Amro Realty Corp.

In Powers Chemco, the New York Court of Appeals reiterated its Technicon holding that the exception to the pollution exclusion clause is operative only if the discharge was both sudden and accidental.

Summary of this case from Ogden Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co.

In Powers, similarly, the insured was sued as a result of hazardous wastes leaching out of drums stored by the insured's predecessor.

Summary of this case from Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am
Case details for

Powers Chemco, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:POWERS CHEMCO, INC., Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 21, 1989

Citations

74 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. 1989)
549 N.Y.S.2d 650
548 N.E.2d 1301

Citing Cases

New York v. Amro Realty Corp.

In the meantime, however, both the New York State Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit have issued…

Quaker St. Minit-Lube, v. Fireman's Fund

Hartford, 962 F.2d at 1488 (quoting General Host, 946 F.2d at 1486). General Host itself cites to EAD…