Title: Hicks v. American Resources Ins. Co.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

544 So. 2d 952 (1989)
Emery L. HICKS, et al.
v.
AMERICAN RESOURCES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
87-1548.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 28, 1989.
*953 Robert B. Roden, Birmingham, for appellants.
Robert S. Lamar, Jr. and Jack G. Criswell of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
ADAMS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment in favor of American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. The appellants, Emery and Elizabeth Hicks, charge that the trial court erred in its interpretation of a general insurance policy issued to Berry Mountain Mining Company by holding that an exclusionary clause in the policy operated against the Hickses.
The insurance policy in question was issued by American Resources to Berry Mountain Mining Company on June 1, 1985, and was to be in effect through April 22, 1986. The applicability of the following exclusionary clause is at issue:
"This insurance does not apply:
"....
"....
The record indicates that the Hickses entered into a lease with Berry Mountain Mining Company that permitted Berry Mountain to conduct strip mining operations on their property. Upon cessation of these operations, a pit that had been dug 300 to 400 feet above the Hickses' water supply and that had been continuously pumped dry, was allowed to fill with water. This standing water, the Hickses argue, became contaminated and thereafter contaminated their water supply because of the runoff and seepage, etc., of acids, alkalis, and toxic chemicals, etc.
In granting American Resource's requested relief, the trial judge stated:
The Hickses contend that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the means through which the discharge occurred, i.e., seepage and runoff as opposed to other *954 more "industrial" means. They argue that the exclusionary clause was intended to exclude only industrial contamination resulting directly from mechanical instruments or machines.
American Resources, on the other hand, contends that the exclusionary clause applies and that it should not be required to indemnify Berry Mountain in the event that the Hickses obtain a judgment against Berry Mountain. We agree. In the case sub judice, the pollutants causing the damage were undisputedly acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, etc. While the Hickses cite Molton, Allen & Williams, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 347 So. 2d 95 (Ala.1977), in support of their argument, we note that that case involved the issue of whether sand qualified as one of the pollutants listed in the exclusion. The exclusionary clause in that case listed the same pollutants as those listed in the exclusion in this case.
Id., at 96-98. In Molton, Allen & Williams, Justice Maddox stated:
Id., at 99. We are of the opinion that while this Court found the exclusionary clause ambiguous in Molton, Allen & Williams, as regarding the natural material (i.e., sand) that damaged the plaintiffs' property, in the present case, the clause is not ambiguous as to the pollutants that contaminated the Hickses' property (i.e., acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, etc.).
For the foregoing reasons, American Resources is not required to indemnify Berry Mountain, should that company be held liable to the Hickses for the contamination of their water supply. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.