comments i'll try to be brave in this particular case we have a one of them all right thank you in this case we have a series of complex have been some my client had approximately fortunately i didn't write the complaint so i know that it has nothing to do with what it is that you know that we're doing against and in the sense that there doesn't really seem to be a cause of action for the fire the fire seems to be  liable for the cleanup costs and that's what i believe that statute is or that cause of action i so i thought it didn't matter whole lot because under california law you look not just of what the third party sued the policy holder for but also what the policy holder might ultimately be found liable for under the facts alleged in the complaint are those available to the insurer by reasonable investigation yes  cover coverage liability of the insurance company actually to cover the claim it's now an duty to defend duty to defend for a broader right work right on the duty to cover ak could you tell me exactly what the the insurance you're supposed to be at fault right right and are you against hurting people when it's your fault if you know what's industry case at page one thousand forty foot no one there's a reference to the mechanic case is important is because it shows that companies can't just use the word contaminant or your and say well pollution and therefore there's no carbon that the court wants the california if somebody drops a two by four in the freeway it's going to be a hazard for the health and safety of the public but to vote for is not going to be an environmental damage kind of situation for a kid in takes care of right and what i'm saying is any any coverage allowed for just trees if the court said all right not for tires but for trees then the insurance company would have to defend the entire case so if there's any conceivable grounds for uncovered claves right now when i was there getting this sort of think what we would do if they refused to defend to set him up with a release that said all the money was for the covered claims but i don't remember seeing or no it was like that nothing like that why did the fire start we don't know we don't have any evidence of this it may not have anything to do with tires we're just speculating as to what it might be it might be that there was a branch that the caught fire might be somebody else  they have not done that then california has other remedies that are available to ensure that is and that's not an issue really before the court what is the case to look at for if they reach their duty to defend was a case where the chemical company dumped all sorts of things in the stringfellow waste site and there was found to be coverage for that so i think we have a situation here for the mere litigate these on all sides we've always defended something like this to keep control of it and the law my state fall of california law which was that if anything in the complaint alleged or that could be understood by a jury to allege as something within the coverage or if it could reasonably be discovered by the insurance company that something within the coverage was going to give rise to liability or if the complaint could be understood in any way or proved could be allowed under the complaint in any way that would prove anything within the coverage and there was a duty to defend under they dump stuff and it started to fire at the site and you could say well we guard most of how it's pleaded right now it may be cleated all in environmental liability terms even so obviously the plaintiffs could amend the complaint as the case went on and prove common law nuisance carelessly starting to fire negligence all of which would be within the coverage if i can let's start first with with to change the facts is not ground the pollution in the first place if the fires the consequence of the intentional conduct greater fire causes the harm that's writes me as being quite analogous to the california case that's just an old that the blue briefs here intentionally speeding down the freeway at eighty miles an hour just like everybody else on the freeway and you know you're going eighty and you know you're going in excess of the speed limit and he hit somebody and kill him your liability insurance company has to defend you or has to pay even though you're driving and you violation of the law were intentional and if in fact you intended to hit that car then you know that there would be no coverage but they have to defend because well i have two ways to look at that one is i want to look at our policy language and how you define an accident the second is i don't have an answer necessarily for the car that flips over but we do have an answer for the situation in which direct can be the direct consequence of a period of dumping materials over a long period of time and also could not and the complaint doesn't depend on any of that right because the complaint is interested  matter because one might be an accident the other one might not know because the absolute the test of the answer is the insurance condoms and that's where the california case is saying it's not the result it's not the damage it's not what happens there after what california case law story was there seems to be some lines between situations in which it was intentional content and something bad happened and that's an accident in other instances it is but i think the answer to the question about the c is the fine so now really to avoid non coverage why i remember a case that i was litigated where somebody got mad at a bar that eighty six them so he rammed the bar couple times with this pickup truck drove right through it and that the law was it's an accident from the bar owners point of view that was really pushing it but my gosh on this one the only thing you've even got for intentional is that they dumped the materials even the third party complaint the allegations by the county are they should have known because it was such a bargain that there was something wrong with the licensing it's obvious that negligence might be proved rather than intent as to the unlawfulness of action it's perfectly lawful standpoint or intentional conduct from a twit standpoint the question is from an accident standpoint under the definition of california or whether the conduct at issue now going to change of the insured in performing the apply for that harm otherwise the moral hazard would be would be unbearable where the insured conducted himself in such a way that it led to the intruder harm but he didn't mean to bring it about it's  and injury caused by the fire it's between what he did and the fire started and that's not a question of injuries that's the physical advantage that it that he's claiming the insurance for and that's why i have a hard time seeing complaint since the insurance company didn't defend and get a judgment that if there was something else and what the complaint says is they gave the among others and there was spontaneous combustion of materials at the dump site generality i think that you're discussing it i mean with fire arson is not covered yes and the consequences of arson are not covered right at a friendly fire such as a fire in the fireplace where the person intended to start the fire and because they haven't called the chimney sweep their fall they've got too much creosote in the stack starts to stack fire catches the roof on fire burns down the whole part of building that is covered even though they intended to start the fire because cases at a minimum there is an intervening act which is part of the off line just intervening acts don't cause coverage the reason that it's covered is there is no moral hazard attached to a friendly fire such as a fire in the of these materials there was contamination of that area the pollution exclusion in this case and that's where your intervening cause comes in because pepper industry says that if  the supreme court decision in the clinton health and the supreme court that says the pollution exclusion doesn't even apply to insecticide because it's not a traditional kind of way of that policy would apply to the direct application of a pesticide there wasn't any question that a pesticide itself would be a pollution a pollutant the question there was whether when any toxic chemical i dumping of materials in a place that should have been it's no different than had j d lansdown p c p s and i know that the question was raised about hazardous materials knows nowhere in this exclusive is there any requirement that it be hazard in the ground in this california supreme court case with janet and the court says well it wasn't pollution in the ordinary traditional sense if you just look at the dictionary definitions of the words the pollution exclusion would eat up the coverage of the policy beyond what's intended so it has to be and pollution in the ordinary sense i would ask you the question was hazardous it was poison but in that case the issue did not have to do with the dumping of materials in a landfill as well you do with dumping deliberately of right they deliberately bribed put yellowjacket poison in the ground without a permit to put hazardous substances in the ground and the supreme court of california said the pollution exclusion doesn't apply and united states versus mar