QUARRY v. GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Filed 7/27/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| ORTEGA ROCK QUARRY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E037906 (Super.Ct.No. RIC370782) OPINION |
Story continue from Part I ……..
We next note that courts in California and other jurisdictions have found no ambiguity in the language of total pollution exclusions identical or substantially similar to that in the policies we are presently considering. In Garamendi, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 480, an insurer refused to tender a defense for its insured on claims based on workers' inhalation of silica dust arising from the insureds' sandblasting operations. The insurer argued that the total pollution exclusion endorsement in the policy (in language identical to that in the present case) precluded coverage for the claims. The trial court agreed, and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at pp. 483-484.)
The foundation for the court's opinion in Garamendi was the Supreme Court's recent treatment of the interpretation of a total pollution exclusion in MacKinnon, supra, 31 Cal.4th 635. In Mackinnon, the court considered the meaning of an exclusionary clause in a comprehensive general liability policy that excluded injuries caused by the â€
