|
|
|
Insurer Need Not Defend or Indemnify Global Warming Defendant
(September 2011) By Colleen K. O’Brien
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co.,
No. 100764 (Supreme Court of Virginia, Sept. 16, 2011) | View pdf
In AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co., an insurer filed a
declaratory judgment action in Virginia state court in order to disclaim
coverage for a defendant sued in a global warming case. In the underlying case,
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., a native Alaskan community sued
AES, an energy company, and other defendants, for allegedly damaging the village
by intentionally emitting greenhouse gases, which caused global warming.
AES requested that Steadfast provide defense and indemnity
under its commercial general liability policies, and Steadfast filed the instant
declaratory judgment action for a determination of whether it was required to do
so. The trial court granted the insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, holding
that the Complaint did not allege an “occurrence” as that term was defined in
the policy, and therefore, the allegations in the Complaint were not covered by
the policies.
The appellate court upheld the trial court decision. It
applied the eight corners rule, which requires the Court to confine its
analysis to the four corners of the Complaint and the four corners of the
policy. The Court reasoned that because the Complaint accused the insured of
intentionally releasing greenhouse gases, that the insured’s conduct was not
an “accident” or “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy. The Court
rejected the insured’s argument that in reality, they had unintentionally
released the emissions. To the Court, the issue was whether the resulting
harm was a foreseeable consequence of the insured’s business. Because the
Plaintiffs in the underlying case alleged that the insured should have
anticipated the damages resulting from its emissions, the damage resulting
from the insured’s conduct was foreseeable. Therefore, the trial court
properly granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
|
|
|