Karen R. Baker

Name: Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co.
Author: Karen R. Baker

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

Summary

“Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co.”, published in 2012, is a work by Karen R. Baker. It explores elements such as Scottsdale, pollution and pollution exclusion.

Quotes from Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (Karen R. Baker)

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ As in Minerva, it is unclear whether the claimed gases, smoke, dust, fumes, odors, and particulate from the CAFO would constitute "solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant" falling within the definition of "pollutants" contained in the insurance policy's pollution exclusion. We conclude that whether the dissemination of such gases, smoke, dust, fumes, odors, and particulate comes within the definition of "pollutants" is fairly susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation; therefore, the pollution exclusion is ambiguous. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ On appeal, Scottsdale claims that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the duty-to-defend claim because the pollution-exclusion provision in the insurance policy is unambiguous and excludes defense of pollution claims. On cross-appeal, appellee asserts that the circuit court erred in denying in part its motion for attorney's fees. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2 (b) (1) , (2) , and (5) (2011) . We affirm on direct appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ As a general rule, the pleadings against the insured determine the insurer's duty to defend. Id. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify; the duty to defend arises when there is a possibility that the injury or damage may fall within the policy coverage Id. Where there is no possibility that the damage alleged in the complaint may fall within the policy coverage, there is no duty to defend. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ Appellee filed a notice of cross-appeal on June 24, 2011, from the Amended Order and the Fee Order regarding its request for attorney's fees and expenses paid to Stubbs.
For reversal, Scottsdale argues that (1) Tennessee law, not Arkansas law, governs the interpretation and application of the Scottsdale CGL policy; and (2) under either Tennessee or Arkansas law, the pollution exclusion unambiguously applies and operates to preclude coverage and defense obligations for the persistent and widespread industrial pollution released from an industrial-poultry farm. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ On appellate review, we must determine whether summary judgment was proper based on whether the evidence presented by the moving party left a material question of fact unanswered. Id. We view the proof in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion, resolving any doubts and inferences against the moving party, to determine whether the evidence left a material question of fact unanswered. Id.
Where the appeal is from the grant of summary judgment in cases involving an insurance policy, we liberally construe any ambiguities in the policy in favor of the insured. State Auto Prop. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ Scottsdale argues that no duty to defend arose because the unambiguous language of the policy's pollution exclusion negated its duty to defend appellee from the claims in the underlying lawsuit. We must first apply the test for determining a liability carrier's duty to defend. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ Appellee argues that we have held that pollution exclusions are ambiguous as a matter of law. On the other hand, Scottsdale contends whether pollution exclusions are ambiguous always depends on the context, citing Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 735 A.2d 100, 106 (Penn. 1999) . Arkansas law is clear on this issue without the need to resort to law from other jurisdictions. We have stated:
Although the meaning of an ambiguity may become a question for the fact-finder if parol evidence has been admitted to resolve that ambiguity, see Minerva Enter., Inc. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Karen R. Baker, Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (2012)

“ R. Civ. P. 56 (c) (2) (2011) . The burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact is upon the moving party. Ryder v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 508, 268 S.W.3d 298 (2007) . ”

Karen R. Baker

Summary

Quotes from Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co… (Karen R. Baker)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature