Doe Run Resources Corporation v. Lexington Insurance Company
719 F.3d 868
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Doe Run operates the Sweetwater Mine and Mill near Viburnum, Missouri, extracting and processing lead and other metals.
- Nadist, LLC filed a environmental-property-damage lawsuit against Doe Run in 2006; Missouri intervened in 2008, asserting state and federal claims.
- Doe Run tendered defense under eight CGL policies from 1998–2006; Lexington denied coverage on multiple grounds.
- District court held Lexington had no duty to defend due to unambiguous absolute pollution exclusions baring all Nadist claims.
- Doe Run argues Lexington’s exclusions are ambiguous and that a later lead-specific exclusion deletion should not bar coverage.
- The court focuses on whether the Nadist First Amended Complaint aligns with the pollution exclusions, not the underlying factual nuances alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the absolute pollution exclusions unambiguous bar to defense? | Doe Run contends exclusions are ambiguous due to lead focus | Doe Run argues exclusions do not apply as a matter of law | Exclusions unambiguous; bar coverage |
| Did the post-2004 lead exclusion deletion affect coverage ambiguity? | Deletion creates ambiguity in lead-related coverage | Deletion does not create ambiguity; exclusions still control | Deletion does not create ambiguity; absolute exclusion remains effective |
| Does the Nadist complaint align with the policy exclusions? | Claims involve product/materials not pollutants | Allegations mirror discharge/contaminants triggering exclusion | Allegations mirror pollution exclusion language; exclusion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Lampert v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 85 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. App. 2002) (duty to defend exists where some insured claims appear in underlying suit)
- City of Sparta, 997 S.W.2d 545 (Mo. App. 1999) (absolute pollution exclusion unambiguously bars coverage)
- Hocker Oil Co. v. Barker-Phillips-Jackson, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. App. 1999) (pollution exclusion ambiguous as to whether gasoline is a pollutant)
- United States v. Standard Oil Co., 384 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court) (definition of refuse/pollutants embraces waste when released into environment)
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. 1991) (courts may not create ambiguity to distort unambiguous policy language)