Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
400 S.W.3d 463
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Doe Run sought environmental remediation coverage under seven excess policies issued by LMI for 1952–1961.
- Central issue is which state's law governs the interpretation of the policies (Missouri vs New York).
- Trial court applied New York law for interpretation/allocation, resulting in a pro rata allocation over the entire contamination period and a reduced judgment.
- Missouri law governs under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §193; the insured risk is principally located in Missouri, with all six sites in Missouri.
- The jury awarded Doe Run $62,481,238.30; the court, applying NY law, awarded $5,145,208.03; this appeal/further proceedings seek reinstatement of the full jury verdict.
- The six sites affected include Leadwood, Bonne Terre, Elvins, National, Desloge/Big River, and Federal; several sites were inoperative during 1958–1961 according to the summary judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law governing policy interpretation | Missouri law controls as principal location of insured risk | New York law should apply due to allocation framework | Missouri law applies |
| Allocation scheme under the policies | All-sums allocation should apply to cover ultimate liability | New York pro rata allocation should apply | All-sums allocation applies; NY pro rata rejected |
| Number of occurrences per site | Multiple distinct occurrences (active operations, chat piles, tailings) | Single occurrence per site under policy definitions | Three occurrences per site during active period; two at inoperative sites; remand to reinstate full jury verdict |
| Prejudgment interest on liquidated damages | Damages were liquidated and readily ascertainable; interest should accrue | Interest not warranted | Prejudgment interest awarded under Section 408.020; damages liquidated |
Key Cases Cited
- D.R. Sherry Const., Ltd. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 316 S.W.3d 899 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for submissible case; de novo review of insufficiency of evidence)
- Investors Title Co. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. banc 2007) (evidence sufficiency; submission requirements)
- Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 883 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. banc 1994) (test for submissible case; favorable view of plaintiff evidence)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard de novo; burden shifting)