By Al Haverkamp of Lucas & Haverkamp
1Question: This quiz involves “personal injury” coverage. In the world of liability insurance, “personal injury” coverage applies to injury which arises out of the commission of certain enumerated acts or offenses (e.g. slander or false arrest). “Personal injury” coverage is triggered by the offense, not the injury or damage so it has nothing to do with a personal injury lawsuit. Here, the government brought an environmental action alleging trespass and nuisance against Martin Marietta (“MM”) related to the remediation of groundwater contamination emanating from MM’s property. MM requested coverage from INA, who provided only “personal injury” coverage to MM. One of the enumerated offenses under the “personal injury” coverage was “wrongful entry or eviction.” MM sought coverage for the government’s action under this provision. INA denied coverage, asserting: (a) neither trespass nor nuisance claims are covered as they are not enumerated offenses in the policy; and (b) “wrongful entry” requires proof that MM entered the land at issue with force with the intent to secure possession of the property and that is not what the government was alleging. Is there coverage?
Answer: Yes. The Court noted the general rule that coverage clauses are to be interpreted broadly. The Court found the phrase “wrongful entry” was often used in California case law when describing a trespass or nuisance, so the phrase “wrongful entry” did cover trespass and nuisance claims. The Court noted trespass and nuisance claims may include wrongful entry by pollutants. Lastly, the Court stated there was nothing in the policy which limited the phrase “wrongful entry” to a forcible type entry. See Martin Marietta v INA (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1113.