Appellant insured sought review from a judgment

Procedural Posture

Appellant insured sought review from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor of respondent insurers after the insured was sued to contribute to the costs of the environmental cleanup of the landfill where it regularly disposed of its liquid wastes.

Overview: breach of contract caci

Appellant insured challenged a grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurers after the insured was sued to contribute to the costs of the environmental cleanup of the landfill where it regularly disposed of its liquid wastes. The insured operated a machine shop and contracted for the regular off-site disposal of hazardous wastes at a municipal landfill, and both the EPA and a third party sought damages for contribution. The insured contended that summary judgment should be reversed because triable issues of fact existed concerning the existence of an occurrence, the applicability of the pollution exclusion, and the nature of the EPA claim as a suit. The court concluded that coverage was barred by the pollution exclusion because the property damage arose out of the purposeful, long-term, and regular discharge of waste materials into or upon the land by the insured or its agent. The relevant discharge of pollutants was neither sudden nor accidental. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment against appellant insured and in favor of respondent insurers after the insured was sued to contribute to the costs of the cleanup of the landfill where it regularly disposed of its liquid wastes. The court held that coverage was barred by the pollution exclusion, because the property damage arose out of the purposeful, long-term, and regular discharge of waste materials into or upon the land by the insured.

Outcome

The judgment was reversed with directions to the lower court to enter judgment in favor of appellant shareholder because an option to purchase a block of shares was not contemplated in view of the use of the word "all" in the option agreement. The court ruled that the option price was not on a per share basis, and that it made no provision for the prorating the overall purchase price if less than all of the stock were purchased.