Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. País/Territorio Estados Unidos de América Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte inferior Fecha Mar 30, 2012 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal United States District Court, District of Pennsylvania Juez Sanchez, J.R. Número de referencia No. 11-565. Idioma Inglés Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Emisiones Responsabilidad/indemnización Sustancias peligrosas Resumen The Clemens Family Corp. and its subsidiary Country View Family Farms LLC (collectively, the Clemens) owned a commercial pig farm in Indiana. The facility collected pig excrement into a large cement pit that drained through a dragline, which deposited the waste onto nearby fields for use as fertilizer. Several neighbors sued the Clemens alleging that the pig farm produced “harmful and ill-smelling odors, hazardous substances and contaminated wastewater” that escaped onto neighboring properties. The complaint alleged that the “offensive and noxious odors” impaired the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of their properties and caused nausea, vomiting, headaches, respiratory problems, irritation, and aggravation of existing medical conditions. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and Zurich American Insurance Co., which issued primary general liability policies to the Clemens, denied coverage based on their policies respective pollution exclusions, which precluded coverage for damages by the insureds “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.” Both policies defined “pollutants” as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” Addressing the issue of whether the manure odors fell within the policies definition of pollutants, the court cited Pennsylvania cases applying standard dictionary definitions to the term “pollutant.” The court also looked to Pennsylvania cases holding that fumes are pollutants for the purposes of pollution exclusions. Relying on these cases, the court held that:[N]oxious odors produced by pig excrement (or waste) that cause bodily injury and property damage appear to fit squarely within the definition of pollutant under the policies. The fact that pig waste is spread over fields as fertilizer is of no moment, as “waste” includes materials left over from a production operation, and the policies definition of pollutant expressly includes waste that is to be reused. In reaching its holding, the court considered the Clemens argument that “because odors can be unpleasant or sweet, harmful or innocuous, the allegation of foul odors is too ambiguous to be construed as a pollutant barring coverage.” The court, however, rejected such a bright line rule and instead held that the nature of the alleged odors, in relation to the alleged harm, determines whether it is a pollutant. Thus, the court explained that the noxious odors unambiguously fell within the definition of pollutant because the pig farm created pollution resulting in physical harm. The court also rejected the Clemens argument that farm odors cannot be pollutants in a rural area. Texto completo COU-158480.pdf