explaining that merely accepting the non-binding decisions of other courts "by the purely mechanical process of searching the nations courts for conflicting decisions" amounts to an abdication of this Court's judicial role
How later courts described this case
- explaining that merely accepting the non-binding decisions of other courts "by the purely mechanical process of searching the nations courts for conflicting decisions" amounts to an abdication of this Court's judicial role
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MUSMANNO, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I join in the dissenting statement of my distinguished colleague, President Judge McEwen. I write separately, however, to note my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that child’s ingestion of lead-based paint constitutes “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants.” The majority, relying on Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins., 557 Pa. 595 , 735 A.2d 100 (1999), concludes that the common element among the terms in the policy’s pollution exclusion is movement of the pollutant. This case, however, does not present a situation in which the pollutant, due to its composition or lack of sufficient containment, moves and, consequently, causes injury. Instead, this case presents the situation in which a child physically places the lead-based paint chips into his body, ingesting them, thus causing injury to himself. Hence the actions of the child cause the movement of the pollutant, removing this situation from the pollution exclusion. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the trial court, which required Housing and Redevelopment Insurance Exchange to provide a defense to the Fayette County Housing Authority in the underlying action.
¶ 2 FORD ELLIOTT, J., joins this Dissenting Statement.