Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance
1999 Pa. LEXIS 2139, 735 A. 2d 100, 557 Pa. 595 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An absolute pollution exclusion clause in a commercial general liability insurance policy, which defines pollutants to include irritants and fumes, unambiguously applies to bar coverage for injuries arising from exposure to toxic fumes from a chemical product used in the insured's normal business operations, even when those fumes are confined to the immediate worksite.
Facts:
- In 1991, Madison Construction Company was hired to pour and cure concrete utility trenches at the Boeing/Vertol Helicopters Facility.
- To cure the concrete, Madison applied a compound known as Euco Floor Coat or Eucocure.
- During the application, Madison enclosed the construction area in an 'envelope' of polyethylene sheeting.
- Nicholas Ezzi, a Boeing employee, was summoned to the construction area to investigate a strong odor emanating from the curing agent.
- While attempting to set up an exhaust fan, Ezzi was overcome by the fumes, lost consciousness, and fell into an excavation site.
- Ezzi sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicholas Ezzi filed a negligence action in a trial court against Madison Construction Company.
- Madison sought defense and indemnity from its insurer, Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company, which Harleysville denied based on the policy's pollution exclusion clause.
- Madison filed a declaratory judgment action against Harleysville in the trial court to determine the issue of coverage.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Madison (the insured).
- Harleysville, as appellant, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Superior Court granted reargument en banc.
- The en banc Superior Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Harleysville (the insurer).
- Madison, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth's highest court.
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 a pollution exclusion clause in a commercial general liability policy, which defines pollutants to include 'fumes' and 'irritants', relieve an insurer of its duty to defend its insured in a personal injury action arising from exposure to fumes from a concrete curing agent used at a construction site?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Saylor
Yes. A pollution exclusion clause that broadly defines pollutants to include irritants and fumes unambiguously relieves the insurer of its duty to defend. The court's task is to interpret the plain language of the insurance contract. The policy defines 'pollutants' as any 'irritant or contaminant, including...fumes...[and] chemicals.' The Material Safety Data report for the product, Euco Floor Coat, confirms it is an irritant containing toxic chemicals, and the fumes it emitted were strong enough to overcome an adult. Therefore, the fumes are unambiguously 'pollutants' under the policy. The policy also requires a 'discharge, dispersal, release or escape,' which occurred when the fumes dispersed into the air of the worksite; the policy language does not require the dispersal to be 'into the environment.' Finally, all the underlying negligence claims 'arose out of' the release of these fumes, as they were the 'but for' cause of the injury.
Dissenting - Justice Cappy
No. The pollution exclusion clause should not relieve the insurer of its duty because the key policy term 'arising out of' is ambiguous and should be construed against the insurer. This phrase could require proximate causation, not merely 'but for' causation, and the proximate cause of the injury was the alleged negligence in failing to protect the site, not the incidental release of fumes. Applying the majority's literal 'plain meaning' approach leads to absurd results, such as excluding coverage for a slip-and-fall on spilled Drano. The exclusion should be limited to hazards traditionally associated with environmental pollution, not accidents arising from normal business activities.
Dissenting - Justice Nigro
No. The insurer's duty to defend is determined by the nature of the claims in the complaint, which must be liberally construed in favor of the insured. Ezzi's complaint alleges injuries caused by Madison’s negligence—specifically, failure to warn, failure to ventilate, and failure to cover the hole into which he fell. The claims are not premised upon the dispersal of pollutants. Since the nature of the claim is negligence, and not pollution, the pollution exclusion clause is not triggered and Harleysville has a duty to defend.
Dissenting - Justice Newman
No. The grant of summary judgment for the insurer is inappropriate because the trial court did not develop a sufficient factual record. The Material Safety Data report stated that the product line may contain certain toxic chemicals, but there was no specific factual determination of the chemical composition of the exact product used by Madison. Without this factual determination, a court cannot reliably conclude that the product or its fumes are 'pollutants' under the policy. Therefore, the case should be remanded for further factual development.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a broad, literal interpretation of the 'absolute pollution exclusion' clause in Pennsylvania, significantly strengthening the position of insurers. By rejecting the argument that the exclusion should be limited to traditional environmental pollution, the court allows insurers to deny coverage for a wide range of incidents involving chemical irritants in routine commercial settings. The ruling clarifies that the terms 'pollutant' and 'dispersal' are to be given their plain, ordinary meaning, without importing extra-contractual requirements like a release 'into the environment.' This precedent makes it more difficult for policyholders to secure coverage for injuries caused by fumes from paints, sealants, and other common commercial products.
Unlock the full brief for Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance