Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Macklanburg-Duncan, Magnetic Peripherals, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Citations: 910 F. Supp. 548; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20996; 1993 WL 814317Docket: No. CIV-92-1650-A
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma; March 28, 1993; Federal District Court
On June 25, 1986, the United States Environmental Protection Agency filed a civil action against Royal N. Hardage regarding a waste disposal site in Criner, Oklahoma, resulting in a judgment against Double Eagle Refining Company for its share of cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Following this, the plaintiffs initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if insurance policies issued to Double Eagle by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Continental Casualty Company, Interstate Fire and Casualty Company, and Stonewall Insurance Company cover the judgment in the Hardage Action. The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that their comprehensive general liability insurance policy included a pollution exclusion clause, which negated coverage for pollution-related damages stemming from Double Eagle's hazardous waste disposal at the Hardage Site. The Court referenced a prior case, Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Kansas City Fire and Marine Ins. Co., where similar exclusion language was found to exclude coverage for property damage due to pollutant discharge. The Court emphasized that facts must be viewed favorably towards the nonmoving party when deciding on a summary judgment, but concluded that plaintiffs’ claims were effectively the same as those in OPUBCO and thus warranted the granting of the defendants' motion. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that the reasoning in OPUBCO remains valid. Meanwhile, Home Indemnity Company, a defendant, indicated it would pursue a formal settlement and did not join the motion. The Court acknowledged a related ruling from Kerr McGee Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Sur. Co. but clarified that it is not bound by that decision.