FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials

Pages:     | 1 | 2 ||


-- [ Page 3 ] --

insurance: would that individual interpret the unambiguous language of the exclusions to bar coverage for occurrences involving innocuous substances like water? See Reg’l Bank of Colo., N.A. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 35 F.3d 494, 497 (10th Cir. 1994). We think not, and that fact alone is likely enough to distinguish those hypotheticals from the comprehensive pollution that the underlying plaintiffs allege in the complaints here, which the pollution exclusions unambiguously cover. To the same end, we are unconvinced that the substances in these hypotheticals would even qualify as “irritant[s] or contaminant[s]” or “substance[s]... [that have]... the effect of making the environment impure, harmful, or dangerous” under the plain language of the applicable policies. 11 In any event, those closer cases are not before us today, and we need not determine how the pollution exclusions here might apply to different allegations.

Headwaters’ assertions of overarching ambiguity are not grounded in Utah law, and they ultimately do not bear on our clear-cut task under the eight corners rule. We thus turn back to the specifics of the pollution exclusion to consider whether they apply to bar coverage for the allegations from the Chesapeake litigation.

11 Headwaters also contends the terms “irritant” and “contaminant” are independently ambiguous. We disagree. These terms have plain and unambiguous meanings, see Church Mut. Ins. Co v. Clay Ctr. Christian Church, 746 F.3d 375, 380–81 (8th Cir. 2014), even if those meanings are expansive.

–  –  –

Pursuant to the definitions in the 2003 and 2006 policies, the “toxic substances” contained within the fly ash mixture clearly constitute pollutants.

Since the fly ash, including its component parts and associated binding agents, is a “pollutant” under these policies, coverage is excluded as long as one of the subparts applies. As the district court held, the “pollutants that allegedly resulted in the Fentress and Sears plaintiffs’ bodily injury and property damage were ‘processed as waste[,]’” triggering subpart c of the pollution exclusion.

Headwaters Res., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 1217 (subpart c applies to “the pollutants that allegedly resulted in the Fentress and Sears plaintiffs’ bodily injury and property damage”). Fly ash, regardless of its possible utility, is a coal combustion waste product according to the complaints. This is the case even when it is mixed with other substances. For this reason, when Headwaters and its co-defendants released the fly ash mixture, a pollutant, into the environment at the Fentress site, the pollution exclusion from the 2003 and 2006 policies forestalled coverage in the event of a lawsuit. Significantly, subpart c only requires that the pollutants were processed as waste “at any time”; thus, it was irrelevant whether the fly ash was still waste when it was dispersed at the Fentress site.

–  –  –

Because of the broad definitions of “pollution” and “pollutants” in the remaining policies, it is clear that the allegations in the complaint properly invoke the pollution exclusions. For example, the complaints allege that the “coal ash [and binding agent] discharged... contains toxic substances” and that “airborne and waterborne releases at the Fentress Site have caused [] hidden carcinogens, poisons and hazardous substances inherent in coal ash [and binding agent] to spread from the facility to the surrounding communities in periodic waves driven by wind and water.” See App. Vol. IV at 791, 824; App. Vol. VII at 1509, 1561.

No ambiguity exists in the extent to which the exclusions apply because they bar coverage for the introduction into the environment of “any substance [that] has, or is alleged to have, the effect of making the environment impure, harmful, or dangerous.” App. Vol. II at 344, 403, 464; App. Vol. III at 598, 697. In the alternative, the fact that the fly ash is considered “waste” under the definition of “pollutants” would also occasion the application of this exclusion.

Instead of relying on the plain language of the applicable exclusions in these policies, the district court sought to avoid the possibility that the broad pollution exclusions could “exclud[e] coverage for bodily injury or property damage not caused by a ‘pollutant acting as a pollutant.’” Headwaters Res., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 1220 (citing IPE, 2007 WL 4561460). In doing so, the district

–  –  –

“traditional environmental pollution.” Id. But the district court came to its conclusion without ever determining that the policies were ambiguous. While we agree that plaintiffs complain of “traditional environmental pollution” as that term is generally defined in other jurisdictions, see generally Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 679, 682–83 (9th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases), we need not consider other scenarios given that the alleged facts in the complaint are resolved by unambiguous language. What is inescapable in this case is that the facts alleged exemplify the type of pollution that the pollution exclusions unambiguously describe and eliminate from the scope of coverage under the policies.

Notwithstanding its analysis regarding whether the complaints allege “traditional environmental pollution,” the district court’s initial conclusion that “[t]hese allegations place the [Chesapeake litigation] squarely within the exclusions for damages arising out of pollution found in the Remaining Policies,” Headwaters Res., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 1219, is the correct one. After finding no ambiguity in the remaining policies, the district court’s work was done.

* * * In sum, the dispositive feature in this case—the feature Headwaters cannot rebut—is that the language of the pollution exclusions remains unmistakeably plain both on its face and as applied to these facts. And because that clear language applies to the causes of action alleged in the complaints, ACE was not

–  –  –

Chesapeake lawsuits.

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that ACE was not liable to reimburse Headwaters for expenses incurred in connection with defending against the Fentress Complaint and the Sears Complaint.

–  –  –

Headwaters also argues that ACE violated its duty of good faith. Under Utah law, the “obligation of good faith performance contemplates, at the very least, that the insurer will diligently investigate the facts to enable it to determine whether a claim is valid, will fairly evaluate the claim, and will thereafter act promptly and reasonably in rejecting or settling the claim.” Beck v. Farmers Ins.

Exch., 701 P.2d 795, 801 (Utah 1985). Where an insurance contract indicates that the scope of coverage is defined by the allegations in the underlying complaint, then the insurer’s only obligation is to compare the complaint to the policy to determine whether the occurrence is covered. Equine Assisted Growth, 266 P.3d at 736. So, to meet its obligation of good faith, ACE in this case only needed to compare the allegations in the complaints to the policies and timely communicate to the insured its coverage decision. ACE fulfilled its obligation.

–  –  –

Finally, Headwaters contends the district court should have granted its Rule 59 motion to revisit summary judgment. It argues the court grounded its ruling

–  –  –

court specifically dropped claims alleging that the leached materials had contaminated plaintiffs’ ground water because the complaints lacked the factual specificity to establish the requisite causal link between the leaching and the injury under Virginia law. See App. Vol. XIV at 3546–53. Headwaters speculates, therefore, that the district court would have reached a different decision had it not considered the leachate claims in concluding the pollution exclusions applied.

We review a denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion. Knight v.

Mooring Capital Fund, LLC, 749 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir. 2014). “[A] trial court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).

There was no abuse of discretion here. Headwaters claims the district court’s “refusal to consider any claims other than those relating to the ‘deleted’ leachate claims meets the criteria” for a Rule 59 motion. See Aplt. Br. at 59.

This argument suffers from both a procedural flaw and a substantive flaw.

Procedurally, a Rule 59(e) motion “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).

–  –  –

that the leachate claims had been dropped from the Virginia state court litigation, but did not do so. We cannot fault the district court for concluding the argument was untimely and refusing to consider it in the context of Rule 59.

And from a substantive perspective, the district court specifically ruled that the new evidence or arguments from the state court litigation “would not change the outcome on the parties’ summary judgment motions anyway - the court sees no distinction among pollution of the air, surface water, and ground water.” See Docket Text Order, Headwaters Res., Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins., No.

2:09-cv-01079-DN (D. Utah), ECF #120 (filed Feb. 14, 2013). The district court’s point is clear: the widespread pollution alleged through the Chesapeake litigation was not contingent on the groundwater claims alone. See supra Part II.A.3. Accordingly, the pollution exclusions would be triggered even if the district court specifically excluded the leachate claims from the complaints.

Finally, it is worth reiterating that the district court considered the underlying complaints and the policies—the only documents necessary to rule on ACE’s liability—in making its decision. Thus, no supplemental evidence or information, as a matter of law, could have influenced the district court’s decision.

–  –  –

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s disposition below.


Pages:     | 1 | 2 ||

Similar works:

«A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 570: 1–703 (2016) Catalogue of Texas spiders 1 CATALOGUE doi: 10.3897/zookeys.570.6095 http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Catalogue of Texas spiders David Allen Dean1 1 Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America Corresponding author: David Allen Dean (a-dean-ento@tamu.edu) Academic editor: I. Agnarsson  |  Received 24 July 2015  |  Accepted 12 November...»

«Developing Surrogates for Liquid Transportation Fuels: The Role of Spherically Symmetric Droplet Combustion C. Thomas Avedisian Abstract The finite supply of transportation fuels has generated renewed interest to improve their performance in power and propulsion devices. However, the complexity of real fuels prohibits developing their combustion chemistries and property databases needed for simulating performance in engines to identify operational regimes for improving fuel efficiency....»

«P R E FA C E U. S. Grain Sorghum is considered a high-value ingredient for least-cost feed formulations around the world. Its moisture content is lower than many comparable ingredients. Its palatability is equivalent to corn in grain/soybean-based formulations, when limit-fed. Its utilization by the animal (nutrient availability) is equivalent to corn when processed appropriately. It stores easily in warm climates because of its low moisture content. It breaks little in handling. It costs less...»

«1 How To Get cheap custom jets jersey numbers,cheap custom lakers jersey ebay Sale Cheap 【cheap custom jets jersey】 asu jersey cheap custom lakers jersey ebay,cheap custom lakers jersey malaysia,custom providence bruins jersey cheap,custom ravens jersey cheap nba,custom dog jets jersey,custom redskins jersey numbers,custom avalanche jersey numbers,custom eagles jersey cheap breaks,cheap custom jets jersey numbers,winnipeg jets jersey custom response,custom nba jersey cheap,custom baby jets...»

«                  Lincoln University Digital Thesis      Copyright Statement  The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).  This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act  and the following conditions of use:  you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study   ...»

«MD Research News Issue 261 Tuesday 12 January, 2016 This free weekly bulletin lists the latest published research articles on macular degeneration (MD) and some other macular diseases as indexed in the NCBI, PubMed (Medline) and Entrez (GenBank) databases. If you have not already subscribed, please email Rob Cummins at research@mdfoundation.com.au with ‘Subscribe to MD Research News’ in the subject line, and your name and address in the body of the email. You may unsubscribe at any time by...»

«GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT IN MINING AREAS Proceedings of the 2nd IMAGE-TRAIN Advanced Study Course Pécs, Hungary, June 23-27, 2003 EUROPEAN COMMISSION RESEARCH DIRECTORATE-GENERAL CONFERENCE PAPERS/TAGUNGSBERICHTE CP-035 Wien/Vienna, 2004 Projektleitung/Project Management Gundula Prokop Editors Gundula Prokop, Umweltbundesamt, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria e-mail: gundula.prokop@umweltbundesamt.at Paul Younger, University of Newcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne, UK e-mail:...»

«Harvard University Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Graduate Student Handbook 2016-2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 STUDENTS, FACULTY & STAFF 5 Incoming Graduate Students 5 Returning Graduate Students 5 Undergraduate Concentrators 6 NELC Faculty 7 NELC Office Staff 8 GENERAL INFORMATION 9 Special Concerns and Grievances 9 Physical Space 9 E-Mail and Hollis 10 Widener Library Seminar Rooms 10 Mail 10 Department Equipment 10 Photocopy Machines 10 Fax Machine 10 Computer...»

«9 Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society—Volume 16—Spring 2010 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPLAINT-DRIVEN REGULATION OF CHILD LABOUR IN ALBERTA* Bob Barnetson Assistant Professor, Labour Relations, Centre for Work and Community Studies, Athabasca University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ABSTRACT This study further develops our understanding of the employment experiences of children (ages 9-11) and adolescents (ages 12-14) in the Canadian province of Alberta, with particular attention to...»

«SERVING THE PUBLIC, FIGHTING AGAINST THE STATE LABOR UNREST IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ACROSS THE EU by Imre Gergely Szabó Submitted tó CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY Dóctóral Schóól óf Pólitical Science, Public Pólicy, and Internatiónal Relatións In partial fulfillment óf the requirements fór the degree óf Dóctór óf Philósóphy Supervisór: Prófessór Bela Greskóvits 31 May 2016 52 875 wórds Declaration I hereby declare that this dissertation contains no materials accepted for any...»

«A practical guide to supporting someone with Severe ME by Linda & Greg Crowhurst A practical guide to supporting someone with severe ME 1 ©www.stonebird.co.uk A practical guide to supporting someone with severe ME by Linda & Greg Crowhurst DISCLAIMER: Please note that Stonebird cannot be held responsible for any action or damages arising as a result of using this guide. The information contained in this guide is copyright but permission is granted to freely distribute it unaltered and in its...»

«Anonymous Milton, or, A Maske Masked Author(s): Ann Baynes Coiro Source: ELH, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Fall, 2004), pp. 609-629 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029936 Accessed: 30/09/2010 15:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.