construing “sudden” to mean unexpected, and holding that property damage resulting from improper installation of insulation causing gradual emission of formaldehyde in residential premises eligible for coverage under “sudden and accidental” exception to pollution-exclusion clause
How later courts described this case
- construing “sudden” to mean unexpected, and holding that property damage resulting from improper installation of insulation causing gradual emission of formaldehyde in residential premises eligible for coverage under “sudden and accidental” exception to pollution-exclusion clause
- describing the “narrowly recognized doctrine” and the “unusual case requiring application of Atwater”
- because qualified pollution exclusion was intended to exclude coverage for polluters who “knew or should have known their actions would cause harm” and because *422 insured reasonably would have believed that release of formaldehyde was “sudden,” exclusion did not cover contractor’s negligent installation of insulation that injured homeowners by emitting formaldehyde fumes
- without exception, the cases which construe the pollution exclusion clause to preclude coverage involve: (1) deliberate disposition of potentially hazardous waste or produced substances; (2) widespread pollution; (3) multiple claimants; (4) damaging actions over an extended period of time, usually in the regular course of business; and (5) discovery of the damage years after the polluting conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 436 (1994)
See Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wasmuth, 432 N.W.2d 495, 498-501 (Minn. App. 1988) (because qualified pollution exclusion was intended to exclude coverage for polluters who “knew or should have known their actions would cause harm” and because *422 insured reasonably would have believed that release of formaldehyde was “sudden,” exclusion did not cover contractor’s negligent installation of insulation that inj…
The opinion
FORSBERG, Judge
(concurring specially):
I concur. I agree that this case is governed by the reasonable expectations doctrine. See Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., 366 N.W.2d 271 (Minn.1985). I do not agree that the insurance clause was ambiguous nor that the occurrence was “sudden.”