Bechtel Petroleum Operations v.The Continental Ins. Co
Filed 3/6/06 Bechtel Petroleum Operations v.The Continental Ins. Co. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| BECHTEL PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants and Respondents. CHEVRON, U.S.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B176561 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC050672) B179969 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC054504) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael B. Harwin, Judge. Affirmed.
Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, John H. Horwitz and Suzanna Krkeyna for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Colliau Elenius Murphy Carluccio Keener & Morrow and W. Heather Sourial for Defendant and Respondent, The Continental Insurance Company.
Sinnott, Dito, Moura & Puebla, John J. Moura; Wiley Rein & Fielding, Theodore A. Howard and Paul A. Dame for Defendant and Respondent, Steadfast Insurance Company.
These cases involve insurance coverage disputes. At issue is whether the insurers had a duty to defend lawsuits filed by workers and their family members for bodily injuries claimed to have been sustained from years of exposure to toxic substances and other dangerous, unsanitary and hazardous conditions at their worksite at an oil and gas reserve operated and/or owned by the insureds. The trial court ultimately entered judgments dismissing the companies' actions against the insurers on the ground principles of res judicata barred the actions. The trial court found our earlier opinion in this matter conclusively established the pollution exclusion in the insurance polices applied to eliminate the insurers' duty to defend the underlying lawsuits. In so ruling the trial court impliedly found the California Supreme Court's recent opinion in MacKinnon v. Truck Insurance Exchange[1] on the proper interpretation of the insurance policies' pollution exclusion, as well as the insureds' additional proffered extrinsic evidence, did not alter its conclusion. We agree the policies' exclusions for traditional environmental pollution relieved the insurers from a duty to defend the underlying bodily injury lawsuits, however, we arrive at this conclusion by instead applying the analysis recently articulated by our Supreme Court. We will accordingly affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Appellant, Bechtel Petroleum Operations, Inc. (Bechtel), was a general contractor engaged in the production, storage and distribution of oil and gas at a 78-square mile tract known as the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (reserve) in Elk Hills near Bakersfield, California. Bechtel hired several subcontractors to perform soil moving, road building, drilling, excavation and other operations at the reserve. Appellant, Chevron, U.S.A., (Chevron), was a part owner of the reserve.
Beginning in 1995 numerous plaintiffs who had worked at the reserve as employees of the subcontractors (and in some instances their survivors) filed lawsuits against Bechtel and Chevron claiming the employees had sustained physical injuries, disabilities or death caused by exposure to toxic substances at the reserve. The toxic substances included numerous chemicals, heavy metals known to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity, as well as hazardous concentrations of lead and arsenic. The complaints included allegations Bechtel and Chevron â€
