State and federal authorities closed down an organization that owned and operated a waste disposal site. The closure was a result of a death at the site. Both state and federal suits were filed against the waste site, which was ordered to pay at least three different federal judgments.

The waste site operation was insured by at least three different insurers over the period of time in question, with both primary and excess policies. After the order to pay was received, the insured filed claims for the amount of the award and defense costs, with the three insurers. All of which denied coverage based upon the pollution exclusion found in general liability and excess policies.

The insured then filed suit against the insurers. During the initial trial, facts were discovered that indicated the insured repeatedly and flagrantly mishandled and improperly stored pollutants. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers and against the insured, even though the insured alleged ambiguity in the policy exclusion for pollution.

Next, the insured filed for an appeal. Part of the appeal was based upon the insured's contention that the exclusion should not apply as the operation of the disposal and storage of the material was legal at the time and that there was no discharge, release, or seepage of the pollutants because they were contained in open pits.

The appeal court did not agree and affirmed in favor of the insurers and against the insured.

(Hinds, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Clean Land Air Water Corporation et. al., Defendants-Appellees. Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Louisiana. LaCtApp. No. 96-1058. April 30, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6231.)