NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., ET AL. RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
89 N.Y.2d 621, 679 N.E.2d 1044, 657 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1997).
March 25, 1997
2 No. 37 (1997 NY Int. 38)
Decided March 25, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Martin London, for Appellant.
Ignatius John Melito, for Respondent Hartford.
Richard S. Oelsner, for Respondents Continental and Pacific.
Barry R. Ostrager, for Respondent National Union.
Submitted by Mary Ann D'Amato, for Respondent London Market.
Aluminum Company of America, et al.; and State of New York; Insurance
Environmental Litigation Association, amici curiae.
LEVINE, J.:
Plaintiff is a Long Island-based corporation engaged in the bulk
storage, distribution and sale of gasoline and other petroleum
products. During the pertinent period, it owned and operated petroleum
storage and distribution facilities in Holtsville and East Setauket,
New York. Both terminals contained aboveground and belowground storage
tanks, and networks of underground pipelines and pumps for transferral
of liquid petroleum products. During the period in question plaintiff
carried primary comprehensive general liability insurance policies
with either defendants National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa. or Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, and excess
general liability policies with defendants Continental Insurance
Company or Pacific Insurance Company (collectively referred to as the
"defendant insurers").
All of the foregoing liability insurance policies provided coverage
for liability stemming from an "occurrence," defined as "an accident,
including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results
in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from
the standpoint of the insured" (emphasis supplied). Each policy also
contained a pollution exclusion clause barring coverage for bodily
injury or property damage "arising out of the discharge, dispersal,
release or escape of * * * toxic chemicals, liquids * * * or other * *
* pollutants into or upon the land * * * but this exclusion does not
SNIPPETS:
Ignatius John Melito, for Respondent Hartford.
Aluminum Company of America, et al.; and State of New York; Insurance Environmental
During the period in question plaintiff carried primary comprehensive general liability
All of the foregoing liability insurance policies provided coverage for liability stemming
Each policy also contained a pollution exclusion clause barring coverage for bodily injury or
In 1986 and 1987, plaintiff discovered that there had been a fortuitous release of gasoline
Defendant insurers disclaimed coverage under the pollution exclusion clauses in their
On cross motions for summary judgment, Supreme Court ruled that, because it could not be
Based on the pleadings in the underlying complaints and the facts subsequently admitted by
The Appellate Division modified by ruling that the defendant insurers had no obligation to
Corp. v American Home Assur.
Co. (74 NY2d 66, rearg denied 74 NY2d 893), we held that the identical language as in the
The parties agree, therefore, that the dispositive issue before this Court is whether the
Co., supra; Powers Chemco, Inc. v Federal Ins.
Applying the temporal element of sudden -- as an abrupt happenstance -- in the pollution
itions."
The focus in determining whether the temporally sudden discharge requirement is met, for the
Moreover, the allegations regarding the temporal aspects of the petroleum leakages actually
|
