Techalloy Co. v. Reliance Insurance
1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7195, 487 A.2d 820, 338 Pa. Super. 1 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer's duty to defend does not arise when an insurance policy contains a clear and unambiguous pollution exclusion for discharges that are not 'sudden and accidental,' and the underlying complaint alleges that the contamination occurred gradually over a long period of time.
Facts:
- Techalloy Company, Inc. was a corporation engaged in the business of cutting and stripping steel, a process which involved the use of the chemical trichloroetheline (TCE).
- In 1976, Techalloy procured a comprehensive general liability insurance policy from Reliance Insurance Company.
- Over a period of approximately 25 years, Techalloy allegedly dumped or stored TCE in a manner that contaminated the local water supply.
- On May 20, 1981, James Peterman filed a class action lawsuit against Techalloy.
- The Peterman lawsuit alleged that local residents were exposed to TCE through contaminated water, causing an increased risk of serious illness, neurological and organ damage, and high anxiety.
Procedural Posture:
- James Peterman filed a class action suit against Techalloy Company, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court).
- Techalloy tendered the defense of the Peterman suit to its insurer, Reliance Insurance Company, which denied coverage and refused to defend.
- Techalloy hired private counsel and successfully defended the Peterman suit.
- Techalloy then sued Reliance in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to recover its defense costs.
- Reliance filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, seeking to dismiss Techalloy's complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted Reliance's preliminary objections and dismissed Techalloy's complaint.
- Techalloy, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate 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 an insurer have a duty to defend its insured against a lawsuit alleging personal injury from chemical contamination when the insurance policy excludes coverage for discharges that are not 'sudden and accidental,' and the underlying complaint alleges the contamination occurred regularly over a 25-year period?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez, Judge
No. An insurer has no duty to defend where a clear policy exclusion unambiguously applies to the allegations in the underlying complaint. Although the allegations of exposure to a hazardous substance and increased risk of illness were sufficient to constitute a 'personal injury' under the policy, the policy's pollution exclusion bars coverage. The exclusion states that coverage does not apply to the discharge of toxic chemicals unless the discharge is 'sudden and accidental.' The Peterman complaint alleged that the contamination occurred on a 'regular or sporadic basis from time to time during the past 25 years.' A long-term, ongoing discharge is not 'sudden,' and therefore the exclusion is triggered, negating Reliance's duty to defend.
Analysis:
This case provides a key interpretation of the standard 'sudden and accidental' pollution exclusion clause found in many general liability policies. The court's decision establishes that the term 'sudden' has a temporal meaning, requiring an event that is abrupt and not long-lasting. By allowing an insurer to deny a defense based on allegations in the complaint that clearly fall within such an exclusion, the ruling reinforces that the duty to defend, while broad, is not limitless. This precedent significantly impacts environmental contamination litigation, making it more difficult for insureds to secure coverage for claims arising from gradual or long-term pollution.
Unlock the full brief for Techalloy Co. v. Reliance Insurance