From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bagley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 22, 1978
64 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Summary

finding pollution-exclusion clause ambiguous, and holding that factual issue presented on whether property damage to crops caused by intentional spraying of chemicals on insured's fields that accidentally had been dispersed to adjacent farmland eligible for coverage under "sudden and accidental" exception to pollution-exclusion clause

Summary of this case from Morton Intern. v. General Acc. Ins. Co.

Opinion

September 22, 1978

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Moule, J.P., Cardamone, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Defendants were hired by one Howard Tuttle to spray his oat fields. They did so by a boom sprayer which released 2.4-D Amin approximately 18 inches above the ground while the tractor to which it was affixed traveled in an east and west direction through the fields. Melvine Bodine, Sr., a neighbor owning property north of Tuttle, brought action against defendants, claiming that the sprayed chemicals were carried to his land and settled upon it causing damage to his vineyards and crops. Plaintiff, insurer of defendants, brought this declaratory judgment action to obtain a judicial determination of its obligation to defendants to defend them in the Bodine action, or pay damages found against them. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Bodine damage claim was excluded from coverage under the terms of the policy. Where an insurance policy is ambiguous or subject to more than one reasonable construction, it will be construed most favorably to the insured and most strictly against the insurer (Matter of Vanguard Ins. Co. [Polchlopek], 18 N.Y.2d 376, 381; Insurance Co. of North Amer. v Godwin, 46 A.D.2d 154, 157). This rule is particularly applicable when ambiguities are found within an exclusionary clause (Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 N.Y.2d 356, 361). In this case the exclusion in controversy provides that the insurer is not obligated to defend or indemnify for "BODILY INJURY or PROPERTY DAMAGE arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of the smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals * * * but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental." Plaintiff contends that the discharge of the chemicals was intentional, not accidental, and therefore the policy excluded coverage for the damage to the Bodine property. In construing whether or not a certain result is accidental, it is customary to view the casualty from the perspective of the insured to determine whether it was "`unexpected, unusual and unforeseen'" (Miller v Continental Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 675, 677). The exclusionary clause when interpreted most favorably to the insured presents ambiguities due to wording of the phrase " if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental." The word "discharge" clearly refers to the original release of the toxic chemicals, an intentional act. However, the word "dispersal" may refer to the original release or it may refer to a secondary dissemination after the original release (see Webster's Third New World Dictionary, unabridged volume [Dispersal defined as distribution; dissemination; scattering]). Thus, when construing the above phrase in a light most favorable to the insured, the dispersal ("scattering") of the spray to the Bodine property may have been sudden, unexpected, unusual and unforeseen. In their affidavit, defendants allege that there was no wind during the time that they sprayed; that the nearest they came to the Bodine property was over 100 feet; and that due care and diligence were utilized from the commencement of the job until completion. Clearly, defendants did not intend to disperse the spray so as to cause damage to Bodine's grapes. Inasmuch as the language of the exclusion is not free from ambiguity the question of coverage and extent thereof should not be determined without affording the parties the opportunity to present proper evidence at a plenary trial (see American Sponge Chamois Co. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 29 A.D.2d 749, 750; Brown v United States Fid. Guar. Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 884).


Summaries of

Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bagley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 22, 1978
64 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

finding pollution-exclusion clause ambiguous, and holding that factual issue presented on whether property damage to crops caused by intentional spraying of chemicals on insured's fields that accidentally had been dispersed to adjacent farmland eligible for coverage under "sudden and accidental" exception to pollution-exclusion clause

Summary of this case from Morton Intern. v. General Acc. Ins. Co.

observing that "the word `dispersal' may refer to the original release or it may refer to a secondary dissemination after the original release"

Summary of this case from Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.

In Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bagley, 64 A.D.2d 1014, 409 N YS.2d 294 (4th Dep't 1978) the insured had sprayed crops on the land of Howard Tuttle. A neighbor complaining that the crop spraying damaged his crops, brought suit.

Summary of this case from New York v. Amro Realty Corp.

In Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bagley ("Bagley"), 64 A.D.2d 1014, 409 N.Y.S.2d 294 (4th Dep't 1978), coverage was also upheld through the application of the general principle that ambiguities in policy language were to be construed against the insurer.

Summary of this case from EAD Metallurgical, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

In Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bagley, 64 App. Div.2d 1014, 409 N.Y.S.2d 294 (1978), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, found that the pollution exclusion clause was inapplicable to an insured sued for damages arising out of the insured spraying chemicals on his oat field which carried to his neighbor's land.

Summary of this case from Jackson Tp. Etc. v. Hartford Acc. Indemn. Co.
Case details for

Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bagley

Case Details

Full title:FARM FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. HOWARD BAGLEY et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 22, 1978

Citations

64 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

New York v. Amro Realty Corp.

" Id. Relying on Klock, insureds here claim that so long as the complaint does not solely allege that the…

Waste Management of Carolinas v. Peerless Ins. Co.

And in City of Milwaukee v. Allied Smelting Corp., 117 Wis.2d 377, 344 N.W.2d 523 (Wis.App. 1983), in which…