Greene v. Westfield Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiffs in underlying Resources, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) action seeking under Rule 69 to recover insurance policy proceeds to partially satisfy approximate $50 million default judgment against defendant’s insured. Instant policies contained exclusions for “known claims” and “expected or intended” injuries, and such exclusions applied to preclude coverage, where record showed that: (1) insured knew about plaintiffs' environmental-related injuries prior to first policy going into effect in 2004; and (2) insured would reasonably have expected that plaintiffs’ similar injuries occurring after 2004 were attributable to insured’s same waste disposal conduct that occurred prior to insured‘s initial, pre-policy notice of plaintiffs’ claims, so as to qualify as expected or intended injuries. Fact that insured may not have known prior to January of 2007 that plaintiffs’ claims were covered by policy’s definitions did not require different result, since relevant inquiry is whether insured knew that it was engaging in activities that would cause some form of harm to plaintiffs’ properties prior to procuring insurance. Also, plaintiffs had argued in underlying lawsuit that insured had such knowledge about their claims prior to issuance of the initial policy so as to defeat their contrary contention in instant action.