Paul Patz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
15 F.3d 699, 1994 WL 27280 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pollution-exclusion clause in a liability insurance policy, which excludes coverage for pollution unless the discharge is 'sudden and accidental,' does not preclude coverage when pollutants were intentionally placed in what were believed to be secure containment structures, but unexpectedly and unintentionally leaked into the environment.
Facts:
- In 1971, the Patz family, operating a farm equipment manufacturing business in Pound, Wisconsin, decided to paint their equipment before selling it.
- Two consulting firms advised the Patzes to dispose of phosphate-contaminated water in an open clay pit, expecting evaporation, and paint sludge in barrels to be taken to a town dump.
- From 1971 until 1980, the Patzes followed these waste disposal recommendations.
- In 1980, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) informed the Patzes that the town dump was not licensed to receive the paint sludge barrels and ordered their removal.
- Rather than taking the 27 barrels of sludge to a licensed dump, the Patzes buried them on their property, paving them over to extend their factory's parking lot, and began burning additional sludge on their premises.
- The Patzes discontinued using the evaporation pit in 1980 and filled it in 1981.
- In 1986, the DNR conducted an environmental audit and discovered groundwater contamination from the pit and soil contamination from the buried barrels, both confined to the Patzes’ premises.
- The DNR ordered the Patzes to clean up both contaminated sites, costing them $400,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The Patz family (and their corporation) sued St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company to recover the $400,000 cost of the government-ordered environmental cleanup.
- A jury trial was held in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the Patz family (insureds).
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (insurer) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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, which excludes coverage unless a discharge of waste materials is 'sudden and accidental,' prevent insurance coverage when waste materials were intentionally placed in containment structures that subsequently, but unexpectedly and unintentionally, leaked and contaminated the environment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Posner
Yes, a pollution-exclusion clause with a 'sudden and accidental' exception does not preclude coverage for cleanup costs when waste materials were placed in what were believed to be contained structures, and the actual release of contaminants into the environment was unintended and unexpected. The court distinguished between the intentional act of placing waste in a containing structure and the subsequent, unintended discharge from that structure. For the buried barrels of paint sludge, the court reasoned that no discharge of contaminants into the soil occurred until the barrels leaked or broke, and this leakage was 'sudden and accidental' in the sense of unintended and unexpected, as interpreted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Just v. Land Reclamation, Ltd. Similarly, for the evaporation pit, which the Patzes believed was a containing structure due to the clay soil, the discharge of wastes into the environment did not occur until the water leached through the bottom, a process that was unintended and unexpected. The court rejected the argument that 'sudden and accidental' requires an abrupt release, affirming the Wisconsin interpretation of 'unintended and unexpected.' Furthermore, the court dismissed St. Paul's argument regarding the 'owner-exclusion clause,' clarifying that the Patzes sought to recover the involuntary costs of complying with a government order to clean up a nuisance, not for damage to their own property, which is a covered liability to a third party (the government/public).
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial interpretation of the 'sudden and accidental' exception to pollution-exclusion clauses, particularly under Wisconsin law. By distinguishing between the intentional placement of wastes into a containment system and the unintentional, unexpected leakage from that system, the court broadens the scope of insurance coverage for gradual pollution events. This decision limits insurers from narrowly interpreting 'sudden' to mean abrupt, thereby ensuring that liability policies can cover unforeseen pollution liabilities even if the ultimate release is not instantaneous. It also clarifies that government-mandated cleanup costs, even on the insured's own property, constitute a liability to third parties, thus falling outside a typical owner-exclusion clause.
