Legal Opinion

MacKinnon v. Truck Insurance Exchange

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 2003No. S104543PublishedCited by 320 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

In this case, we consider the meaning of an exclusionary clause in a comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policy that excludes injuries caused by the “discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants.” Specifically, we are asked to determine whether that clause, a standard pollution exclusion clause, applies to exclude injury to a tenant resulting from a landlord’s allegedly negligent use of pesticides on his property. We conclude that in order for an exclusionary clause to effectively exclude coverage, it “ ‘must be conspicuous, plain and clear’ ” (Gray v.…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by320 opinions

  1. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. United National Insurance v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  3. E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Hall v. Time Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. Ribi Immunochem Research, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2005

315 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API