WRR Environmental Services Inc v. Admiral Insurance Company
2:10-cv-00843
E.D. Wis.Sep 7, 2012Background
- WRR operates a hazardous waste facility and must demonstrate financial responsibility under 40 C.F.R. § 264.147(a).
- WRR purchased a general liability policy from Admiral Insurance in 1983; after policy inception, WRR sought coverage as a PRP for the Lake Calumet Cluster Site.
- Admiral issued declarations including an Absolute Pollution Exclusion, but Gustaveson delivered a Hazardous Waste Facility Certificate of Liability Insurance signed on Admiral’s behalf.
- WRR paid premiums and EPA accepted the certificate as evidence of financial responsibility for sudden accidental occurrences.
- Admiral later questioned the certificate’s validity; WRR sought reformation of the policy to align with the certificate and intended coverage.
- The court denied Admiral’s summary-judgment motion and granted WRR’s, determining the certificate created a mutual mistake that warranted reformation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reformation is appropriate to eliminate the Absolute Pollution Exclusion. | WRR argues the certificate reflects intended coverage for sudden accidental occurrences. | Admiral contends the exclusion remains enforceable and no mutual mistake exists. | Reformation granted; exclusion yields to certificate's intent. |
| Whether a mutual mistake by the insurer’s agent supports reformation under Wisconsin law. | Gustaveson’s miswriting created a mismatch between WRR's request and the policy terms. | There was no mutual mistake by the parties; the policy language stands as written. | Mutual (or at least agent-caused) mistake supports reformation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandenberg v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 628 N.W.2d 876 (Wis. 2001) (reformation based on mistake by agent under insurance contract)
- Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 148 N.W.2d 641 (Wis. 1967) (mutual/agency-based grounds for reform of insurance contract)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden not met when there is a genuine dispute)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (evidence and inferences in nonmovant's favor; standard for summary judgment)
- Rogers v. City of Chicago, 320 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard and movant’s burden)