Garamendi

Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Insurance

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 480·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 346·2005 Daily Journal DAR 2915·25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2096
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 2005A104076, A104077California3,086 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

These are consolidated appeals by Pauli Systems, Inc. (claimant) from identical orders denying applications for orders to show cause in proceedings instituted by claimant against Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation as third party administrator for Golden Eagle Insurance Company (Golden Eagle). The applications challenged Golden Eagle’s denial of coverage for claims asserted by two groups of workers for “silica-related injuries and damages.” The trial court concluded Golden Eagle properly rejected the tenders of defense based on the pollution exclusion contained in its commercial general liability policy. We agree.

Background

The Underlying Complaints

The two underlying complaints, both filed in circuit courts of Mississippi, contain the same charging allegations. Both allege the plaintiffs “worked in, or were otherwise exposed to, silica at and throughout their employment” and “[f]or many years . . . were exposed to silica-containing dust and suffered serious and permanent bodily injuries as a result of their exposure to silica and silica dust.” The complaints continue, “During their work life, [p]laintiffs were injured and damaged through the sale of silica-containing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.