CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

This case addresses whether an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in an insurance policy applies to indoor dissemination of paint or paint solvent fumes. Belt Painting Corp., the plaintiff, was sued by Joseph and Maria Cinquemani for injuries sustained from inhaling fumes during Belt's work. TIG Insurance Company, the defendant and Belt's insurer, denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. The Supreme Court initially sided with TIG, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The Appellate Division held that the exclusion does not apply to cases where the 'environment,' as commonly understood, is unaffected by what could realistically be defined as 'pollution,' thus mandating TIG to defend and indemnify Belt.

Insurance LawPollution ExclusionAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentIndoor Air ContaminationToxic FumesPaint Solvent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Broome County v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

This case involves cross-appeals from an order concerning an insurance dispute. The plaintiff, an insured party, experienced property damage due to silica dust migration during construction, which they claimed was covered by their first-party insurance policy with the defendants, The Travelers Indemnity Company and The Travelers Companies, Inc. The defendants disclaimed coverage based on pollution and faulty workmanship exclusions. While the Supreme Court initially found issues of fact, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that both the pollution exclusion, defining silica dust as a pollutant, and the faulty workmanship exclusion, pertaining to flawed construction processes, unambiguously applied to bar coverage. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Insurance PolicyFirst-Party CoveragePollution ExclusionFaulty Workmanship ExclusionSummary JudgmentSilica DustProperty DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Policy
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Urethane International Products v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance company's duty to defend. Offshore Joint Services, the insured, sued Mid-Continent Casualty Company, its commercial general liability insurer, to recover defense costs incurred in an underlying lawsuit brought by Curtis and Deborah Turner. The Turners had sued Offshore Joint Services for personal injury and property damage resulting from exposure to MDI, a chemical spilled from containers being hauled by Offshore. Mid-Continent initially denied coverage but later assumed defense and settled the underlying suit. The dispute in this case centered on the interpretation of a pollution exclusion clause in the insurance policy, specifically whether the phrase 'as waste' in subparagraph f(1)(c) applied to all preceding actions (transported, handled, stored, treated, disposed of) or only to 'processed.' The trial court ruled that the exclusion applied, limiting 'as waste' to 'processed.' Applying the 'Eight Corners Rule' and the principle of construing ambiguous insurance contracts in favor of the insured, the appellate court determined that Offshore's interpretation was reasonable. The court held that 'as waste' applies to all listed actions, and since the MDI was not waste, the pollution exclusion did not apply. Therefore, Mid-Continent was obligated to defend Offshore. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Insurance Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendPollution Exclusion ClauseChemical SpillMDICommercial General Liability PolicyEight Corners RuleContractual AmbiguityWaste InterpretationCoverage Dispute
References
12
Case No. 04-14-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of Public Service Board of San Antonio, a Municipal Board of the City of San Antonio

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. appealed an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction on its attorney's fees claim in a breach of contract suit against the City of San Antonio acting through the City Public Service Board (CPS). The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court determined that Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as applicable to the 2004 contract, did not waive governmental immunity for attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that CPS waived immunity by seeking affirmative relief or engaging in a proprietary function. The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction due to the absence of a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity for attorney's fees.

Governmental ImmunityAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractPlea to JurisdictionTexas Local Government CodeChapter 271Waiver of ImmunityProprietary FunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. H-95-3595
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 1996

CROWN CENT. PETRO. CORP. v. Rust Scaffold Builders, Inc.

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation (Crown) sued Continental Casualty Company (Continental) for defense costs and indemnification related to lawsuits filed by two SBI employees who claimed injuries from hydrofluoric acid exposure. Crown had a contract with SBI, making Crown an additional insured on SBI's policy. Continental moved for summary judgment, arguing an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in SBI's policy negated its duty to defend or indemnify Crown. The court analyzed the 'eight corners rule' and found the pollution exclusion unambiguous, applying it to the alleged injuries. Consequently, the court granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against Continental and Near North.

summary judgmentinsurance policypollution exclusionduty to defendduty to indemnifycontract interpretationhydrofluoric acidpersonal injuryTexas lawFifth Circuit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1996

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Rust Scaffold Builders, Inc.

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation (Plaintiff) sued Continental Casualty Company (Defendant) seeking defense costs and indemnification under a comprehensive general liability policy issued to Scaffold Builder's, Inc. (SBI). Crown's claim arose from two lawsuits filed by SBI employees who were injured due to exposure to hydrofluoric acid at Crown's refinery. Continental denied coverage, citing an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in SBI's policy. The court, applying Texas's 'eight corners rule,' found the pollution exclusion clear and unambiguous, rejecting Crown's arguments about latent ambiguity based on a 1986 notice. The court granted Continental's Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims against Continental and its agent, Near North Insurance Agency.

Summary JudgmentPollution ExclusionInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationLatent AmbiguityPatent AmbiguityTexas Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute following a summary judgment favoring St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Donnall J. Allen and Margarete Allen, acting as assignees of Tawakoni Water Utility Corp.'s claim, sued St. Paul for wrongful refusal to defend Tawakoni in an underlying suit regarding contaminated water. St. Paul denied coverage based on pollution exclusions in its policies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that all claims by the Allens fell within the policies' pollution exclusions, thereby negating St. Paul's duty to defend or indemnify. The court also dismissed the Allens' challenges regarding the sufficiency of summary judgment proof for missing insurance policies.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary Judgment AppealPollution ExclusionDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyEight Corners RuleBest Evidence RuleAffidavit SufficiencyWater ContaminationTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lapolla Industries, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Lapolla Industries, Inc. against its insurers, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company and Aspen Specialty Insurance Management, Inc., seeking a declaration of coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit (Markey Lawsuit). The Markey Lawsuit alleges personal injury and property damage due to the 'off-gassing' of Lapolla's spray foam insulation. The insurers denied coverage citing pollution exclusion clauses in their policies. The court found a clear conflict between Texas and New York law regarding the interpretation of these clauses, with Texas law viewing them as unambiguous. Applying Texas law based on Lapolla's domicile and the worldwide coverage of the policies, the court concluded that the pollution exclusion clauses unambiguously bar coverage for the Markey Lawsuit claims, thus granting the insurers' motion to dismiss.

Insurance CoveragePollution Exclusion ClauseDeclaratory JudgmentChoice of LawConflict of LawsTexas LawNew York LawSpray Foam InsulationToxic ExposurePersonal Injury Litigation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amoco Production Co. v. Hydroblast Corp.

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage arising from a workplace accident. Hydroblast Corporation's employees were injured by a chemical exposure at an Amoco Production Company plant. Hydroblast, under a Master Contract with Amoco, was obligated to indemnify Amoco and procure comprehensive general liability insurance. The insurance policies purchased through Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. and John Arnold from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company contained a pollution exclusion clause. The court DENIED Hydroblast's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the pollution exclusion applied, thus relieving Fireman's Fund of its duty to defend or indemnify Amoco or Hydroblast. The court GRANTED Fireman's Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment and also GRANTED summary judgment to Daniels Insurance and Arnold, dismissing Hydroblast's claims against them for breach of agreement and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Insurance Code, largely due to the application of New Mexico law for those claims.

Insurance CoveragePollution ExclusionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentContractual IndemnityBreach of ContractChoice of LawTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActTexas Insurance CodePersonal Injury
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,100 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational