Kent Farms, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
30 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20566, 998 P.2d 292, 140 Wash. 2d 396 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An absolute pollution exclusion clause in a general commercial liability policy applies only to claims involving traditional environmental pollution. The exclusion does not bar coverage for bodily injuries resulting from a direct, non-environmental tort, even if the injury-causing substance could be defined as a pollutant.
Facts:
- Steve Gugenberger was delivering diesel fuel to a storage tank at Kent Farms, Inc.
- After filling the tank, Gugenberger began to disconnect the delivery hose.
- A faulty intake valve on Kent Farms' tank caused diesel fuel to back-flow and spray at high pressure over Gugenberger.
- The fuel was driven into his eyes, lungs, and stomach, causing him significant bodily injury.
- Gugenberger struggled to reattach the hose to prevent a larger spill of thousands of gallons of fuel.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve Gugenberger filed a negligence suit against Kent Farms, Inc. in Adams County Superior Court, a trial court.
- Kent Farms sought coverage from its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company, which denied the claim based on a pollution exclusion clause.
- Kent Farms then filed a declaratory judgment action against Zurich Insurance in the same trial court to determine its right to coverage.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Kent Farms, ruling that the exclusion clause did not apply.
- Zurich Insurance, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of appellee Kent Farms.
- Zurich Insurance petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review of the appellate decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an absolute pollution exclusion clause in a commercial liability insurance policy bar coverage for a personal injury claim arising from direct exposure to diesel fuel when the incident does not involve traditional environmental pollution?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No, the absolute pollution exclusion clause does not bar coverage because the clause is limited to traditional environmental pollution and does not apply to direct bodily injury claims rooted in negligence. The court reasoned that the historical purpose of pollution exclusion clauses was to shield insurers from massive liability for environmental cleanups under statutes like CERCLA, not to exclude coverage for common torts. In this case, Gugenberger was directly injured by a jet of fuel; he was not 'polluted' in the environmental sense. The court held that the fuel was not acting as a 'pollutant' but as the direct instrument of injury, akin to being struck by a barrel of chemicals. Therefore, interpreting the exclusion clause broadly would defeat the reasonable expectations of the insured and violate the principle of construing exclusions strictly against the insurer.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the 'absolute' pollution exclusion clause in Washington, establishing that the context of the injury is paramount. It prevents insurers from using the clause as a catch-all to deny coverage for any tort involving a substance that could be classified as a pollutant. The ruling creates a distinction between injuries caused by environmental contamination and those caused by direct, acute exposure in a non-environmental setting. This precedent requires courts to analyze the mechanism of injury—whether the substance was acting as a pollutant in the environment—rather than simply identifying the substance itself, thereby protecting policyholders' reasonable expectations of coverage for general business-related negligence.
