An insured and its neighbor

Procedural Posture Plaintiffs, an insured and its neighbor, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant insurers in a consolidated action arising out of defendants' denial of liability coverage to plaintiff insured for contaminating plaintiff neighbor's property with pollutants leaked from underground storage tanks on plaintiff insured's property. Overview: caci pay dates Plaintiff neighbor's land was contaminated when dry cleaning solvents leaked from storage tanks on plaintiff insured's land. Following litigation between plaintiffs, in which judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff neighbor, plaintiffs brought consolidated actions against defendant insurers after they denied coverage to plaintiff insured for the contamination. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendants, because the court found that the pollution exclusion in each defendant's policy applied, and that the \"sudden and unexpected\" exception to the pollution exclusion did not apply because the evidence pointed only to a gradual release of solvent caused by corrosion. The court interpreted that \"sudden\" meant \"abrupt\" rather than \"unexpected and unintended.\" Because plaintiffs' evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the release of solvents was \"sudden,\" the court concluded that summary judgment was proper. The court also found that defendants did not breach their duty to defend because the extrinsic facts ascertained by defendants at the outset of the underlying case established that there was no potential for coverage. Outcome The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendant insurers because there was no evidence that the solvent contamination occurred \"abruptly,\" and therefore the \"sudden and unexpected\" exception to the pollution exclusion did not apply to plaintiff insured's accidental contamination of plaintiff neighbor's property. Further, defendants did not breach their duty to defend because there was no potential for coverage from the outset.