Title: Doe Run Resources Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
THE DOE RUN RESOURCES 
) 
CORPORATION,  
) 
) 
Respondent, 
) 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC96107 
) 
AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY 
) 
INSURANCE and LEXINGTON  
) 
INSURANCE COMPANY,  
) 
) 
) 
Defendants, 
)
)
and 
)
)
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE 
) 
INSURANCE COMPANY,  
) 
) 
Appellant. 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY 
The Honorable Thomas J. Prebil, Judge 
The Doe Run Resources Corporation was sued by several minor plaintiffs 
allegedly injured by toxic pollution released from Doe Run’s smelting facility in 
La Oroya, Peru.  Doe Run sued its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 
for reimbursement of defense costs incurred during the litigation of these claims.  St. Paul 
Opinion issued October 31, 2017
2 
 
denied any duty to defend Doe Run, alleging coverage was barred under the insurance 
policy’s pollution exclusion.  The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of 
Doe Run, finding the pollution exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable.  St. Paul appeals.  
Because the pollution exclusion is not ambiguous, coverage is barred and St. Paul has no 
duty to defend Doe Run.  The judgment is reversed, and this Court enters judgment in 
favor of St. Paul pursuant to Rule 84.14.1   
Background 
 
Doe Run is a Missouri corporation that produces lead and lead concentrate through 
its mining, milling, and smelting operations.  While its primary business is in Missouri, 
Doe Run also houses a metallurgical industrial complex in La Oroya, Peru.  In 2007, a 
class action lawsuit was filed against Doe Run on behalf of individuals living in the 
vicinity of the La Oroya facility, alleging bodily harm caused by exposure to toxic 
emissions emanating from Doe Run’s facility.  After the class action lawsuit was 
voluntarily dismissed, more than 25 minor plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Doe 
Run (“the Reid lawsuits”).  Each lawsuit raises identical allegations that Doe Run 
released harmful substances, such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide, into the 
environment.  Plaintiffs claim these emissions created a dust that permeated the 
surrounding air and water, “enter[ing] and settle[ing] inside the minor plaintiffs’ houses 
and … on … [their] furniture, clothing, water, and crops.”  Litigation in the Reid lawsuits 
is ongoing. 
                                              
1 “Unless justice otherwise requires, the [appellate] court shall dispose finally of the case.”  Rule 
84.14. 
3 
 
 
In 2010, Doe Run filed suit in St. Louis County Circuit Court against four 
insurance companies, not including St. Paul, seeking reimbursement of costs incurred 
defending against the Reid lawsuits.2  Doe Run added St. Paul to the suit in 2012 under 
St. Paul’s Commercial General Liability Policy.  The policy provided two terms of 
general liability insurance to Doe Run, spanning from December 2005 to November 
2007.  Subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions, the policy covers bodily injury and 
property damage arising during the policy period for any event occurring outside the 
United States. 
St. Paul denied it was legally obligated to defend Doe Run, and both parties 
moved for summary judgment.  St. Paul argued the policy’s pollution exclusion barred 
coverage of the underlying allegations in the Reid lawsuits.  St. Paul also denied coverage 
under the policy’s “other insurance” provision, which eliminates any duty to defend when 
the policy provides excess, rather than primary, coverage.  In the alternative, St. Paul 
argued if the court did find a duty to defend, St. Paul need not reimburse Doe Run for any 
costs incurred before March 2012, when Doe Run first tendered to St. Paul the defense of 
the Reid lawsuits, and it did not owe Doe Run any prejudgment interest.  Doe Run argued 
the pollution exclusion was ambiguous and, because ambiguous policies must be 
construed against the insurer, St. Paul could not avoid its duty to defend under the policy.  
Doe Run also argued St. Paul was a primary insurer of Doe Run and the policy’s other 
                                              
2 These cases have all been adjudicated.  One insurer settled with Doe Run, and another was 
determined, through litigation, to owe Doe Run a defense duty.  The remaining two lawsuits 
were dismissed. 
4 
 
insurance provision could have no preclusive effect on coverage.  The trial court entered 
summary judgment in favor of Doe Run, finding the pollution exclusion ambiguous and 
that St. Paul is a primary insurer of Doe Run and, therefore, has a duty to defend.  
 
Before a trial on damages, St. Paul filed a motion in limine to prevent Doe Run 
from recovering any defense costs incurred before it officially demanded defense from 
St. Paul.  During the trial, St. Paul filed a motion for judgment under Rule 73.01, again 
arguing it could not legally be required to reimburse Doe Run for any costs incurred prior 
to Doe Run’s tender of defense.  The trial court denied both motions.  It entered judgment 
against St. Paul and awarded Doe Run approximately $1.75 million for unpaid defense 
costs plus prejudgment interest.  Two months later, the trial court entered its final 
judgment, reiterating its core findings as to St. Paul’s duty to defend, St. Paul’s breach of 
that duty, and the damages owed. The court awarded Doe Run $2.1 million in damages 
and prejudgment interest and $12,000 in costs.  St. Paul appeals.3   
St. Paul asserts four points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) finding 
St. Paul owes a duty to defend Doe Run because the unambiguous pollution exclusion 
bars defense coverage; (2) finding St. Paul has a duty to defend Doe Run because the 
other insurance provision precludes defense coverage; (3) awarding defense costs to Doe 
Run incurred before the March 2012 tender of the Reid lawsuits to St. Paul; and 
(4) awarding prejudgment interest to Doe Run.  Because this Court finds the pollution 
                                              
3 After an opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.   
5 
 
exclusion unambiguous and enforceable, the trial court’s judgment is reversed and 
judgment is entered in favor of St. Paul pursuant to Rule 84.14. 
Standard of Review 
 
Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo.  ITT Comm’l Fin. Corp. v. 
Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993).  Summary 
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant 
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Id.   
Analysis 
This case presents an issue of first impression for this Court: whether an insurance 
policy’s general pollution exclusion bars defense coverage of a toxic tort claim arising 
from alleged industrial pollution.  Because the pollution exclusion is unambiguous and 
bars coverage, St. Paul does not have a duty to defend Doe Run. 
I.  Interpreting Insurance Contracts 
The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law and is given de 
novo review.  Mendenhall v. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 375 S.W.3d 90, 92 
(Mo. banc 2012).  When interpreting an insurance policy, this Court gives the policy 
language its plain meaning, or the meaning that would be attached by an ordinary 
purchaser of insurance.  Gavan v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 718, 720 (Mo. 
banc 2008).  If the policy language is clear and unambiguous, it must be construed as 
written.  Id.  An ambiguity exists only if a phrase is “reasonably open to different 
constructions.”  Mendenhall, 375 S.W.3d at 92.  Courts may not create an ambiguity 
6 
 
when none exists.  Todd v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Mo. banc 
2007).   
II.  The Pollution Exclusion 
The policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for any injury or damage resulting 
from pollution on any protected person’s premises.  It provides in pertinent part: 
Exclusions – What This Agreement Won’t Cover 
 
 
… 
 
Pollution injury or damage.  We won’t cover injury or damage or medical 
expenses that result from pollution at, on, in[,] or from any[] protected 
person’s premises. 
 
… 
 
Pollution means any actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, 
escape, migration, release, or seepage of any pollutant. 
 
Pollutant means any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant, 
including[] smoke, vapor, soot, fumes[,] acids, alkalis, chemicals[,] and 
waste. 
 
Protected person’s premises means any premises, site, or location that is or 
was at any time owned, rented, leased, borrowed, or occupied by any 
protected person. 
 
The trial court found this language ambiguous, relying on Hocker Oil Co. v. Barker-
Phillips-Jackson, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. App. 1999), which held a pollution 
exclusion not explicitly identifying gasoline as a pollutant was ambiguous as to a 
gasoline company, which considered gasoline a product, not a pollutant.  Id. at 518.   
 
St. Paul argued in its summary judgment motion that, as an outlier, Hocker Oil 
should not be followed.  Further, it challenged Hocker Oil’s applicability to these facts, 
7 
 
arguing the Reid lawsuits allege no injury by Doe Run’s products and the policy need not 
explicitly list “lead” or “metals” in the pollution exclusion for the court to find it 
unambiguous.  Though the trial court found this argument “enticing,” it elected to apply 
the Hocker Oil reasoning “[u]ntil our higher courts resolve the issue.” 
III.  The Pollution Exclusion is Unambiguous and Bars Coverage 
Doe Run argues the pollution exclusion has many layers of ambiguity and is 
incapable of precluding defense coverage here.  First, Doe Run maintains that whether 
lead is a pollutant – and covered by the exclusion – is ambiguous.  Furthermore, Doe Run 
argues the underlying claims in the Reid lawsuits allege injuries caused by its commercial 
products.  Because these commercial products – lead or lead concentrates – were not 
listed in the pollution exclusion, Doe Run contends it is ambiguous under Hocker Oil 
because an ordinary insured would not construe the policy to exclude the very business 
operations for which it purchased the coverage.  St. Paul, in response, argues lead, in its 
particulate form, is unambiguously a pollutant, and the Reid lawsuits do not allege any 
injuries resulting from Doe Run’s business products.  This Court agrees. 
1.  Lead, in Particulate Form, is Clearly Excluded under the Policy 
Doe Run contends, because lead is not unambiguously a contaminant or irritant, 
the pollution exclusion is ambiguous as to whether lead is a pollutant under the policy.  
This argument is incorrect.  Though lead does have commercial value – particularly to 
Doe Run, a lead mining and smelting corporation – it is undoubtedly an irritant or 
contaminant when released as particulate matter into the environment. 
8 
 
“A court is not permitted to create an ambiguity in order to distort the language of 
an unambiguous policy, or, in order to enforce a particular construction which it might 
feel is more appropriate.”  Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379, 
382 (Mo. banc 1991).  Ambiguity exists when there is “duplicity, indistinctness, or 
uncertainty” in the contract language.  Id.   
St. Paul’s policy does not define “irritant” or “contaminant.”  When a policy does 
not define a particular term, courts use the ordinary meaning of the word as set forth in 
the dictionary.  Schmitz v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 337 S.W.3d 700, 708 (Mo. banc 2011).  
An irritant is “something that irritates or excites” or “an agent by which irritation is 
produced.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1197 (3d ed. 1993).  To 
“irritate” is “to cause (an organ or tissue) to be irritable” or “to produce irritation.”  Id.  
“Contaminate” is defined as “to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association” or 
“to render unfit for use.”  Id. at 491. 
An ordinary purchaser of insurance would not interpret this policy to exclude 
coverage for anything that could potentially irritate or contaminate.  Am. Nat. Prop. & 
Cas. Co. v. Wyatt, 400 S.W.3d 417, 425 (Mo. App. 2013). Whether a material is an 
irritant or contaminant turns on the effect it has on its environment.  Williams v. Emp’rs 
Mut. Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 891, 906 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying Missouri law and concluding 
radium, though perhaps not harmful in all contexts, was a contaminant when it was 
present in the water supply and created a serious health risk for exposed individuals).   
The Reid lawsuits allege harm caused by particulate matter released into the 
atmosphere in the vicinity of the Doe Run complex.  The plaintiffs allege toxic chemicals 
9 
 
are present in the air, water, and surrounding environment and these toxic chemicals are 
harmful to the individuals who breathe them.  These claims certainly allege the existence 
of an irritant or contaminant under the ordinary meanings of the words; these emissions 
could be understood to both “produce irritation” and “corrupt” the breathable air, making 
it “unfit for use.”  Accordingly, the toxic emissions expelled from Doe Run’s facilities 
are unequivocally a pollutant under the plain meaning of the term.    
In determining whether there is a duty to defend, a court compares the language of 
the policy with the allegations in the complaint.  McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc., v. 
Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo. banc 1999).  The effect of the 
pollution exclusion is clearly to proscribe the types of claims raised in the Reid lawsuits.  
The basic allegations are clear: toxic substances were in the air surrounding the La Oroya 
facility; these substances harm people who breathe them; and plaintiffs breathed this 
impure air.  There is no question this type of pollution is the exact type of damage 
excluded from coverage under St. Paul’s policy.  The Eighth Circuit, applying Missouri 
law, has found a virtually identical pollution exclusion barred toxic tort coverage for 
claims arising out of Doe Run’s Missouri facility.  See Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Lexington 
Ins. Co., 719 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2013) (“It is hard to imagine a more perfect overlap 
between the allegations in a third party’s underlying complaint and the operative 
language of a pollution exclusion.”).  This Court agrees.  The pollution exclusion 
unambiguously bars coverage under these facts.   
 
 
10 
 
2.  The Underlying Claims Do Not Render the Policy Ambiguous 
Nevertheless, Doe Run asserts the policy is ambiguous because it precludes 
coverage for Doe Run’s essential business materials, and, under Hocker Oil, the pollution 
exclusion should be given no effect.  According to Doe Run, the Reid lawsuits 
“repeatedly” and “broadly” allege injuries resulting from commercial lead “produced, 
used, stored, or handled at and around the facility.”  Doe Run supports its contention by 
highlighting that, under Doe Run’s calculation, the typical petition of the Reid lawsuits 
includes 15 references to the storage of lead or metals, nine references to the use of lead 
or metals, and five references to maintaining lead or metals.  According to Doe Run, this, 
coupled with St. Paul’s knowledge that Doe Run is in the lead business, make it clear the 
“lead” and “metals” referenced in the Reid lawsuits could refer to Doe Run’s 
commercially valuable materials, making the pollution exclusion ambiguous under 
Hocker Oil. 
In Hocker Oil, the court of appeals found a pollution exclusion in a gas station’s 
insurance policy ambiguous because it failed to explicitly include gasoline in its 
definition of “pollutants.”  997 S.W.2d at 518.  The gas station, which was in the business 
of “transporting, selling, and storing gasoline on a daily basis,” disputed the exclusion’s 
applicability to an accidental gasoline spill.  Id.  The company argued that it believed 
gasoline not a pollutant, but a product.  Id. at 513.  Giving “pollutants” the meaning an 
ordinary purchaser of insurance would have assigned the term, the court concluded the 
gas station could have determined gasoline was not a pollutant under the exclusion 
11 
 
because it was not identified as such.  Id. at 518.  This omission created “uncertainty and 
indistinctness,” and the policy, therefore, was ambiguous and unenforceable.  Id. 
Hocker Oil is inapplicable here.  Contrary to Doe Run’s argument, the Reid 
lawsuits make absolutely no allegation of any injury caused by Doe Run’s business 
products.  Indeed, each of the selected quotations cited by Doe Run in its brief omits the 
actual alleged cause of injury: toxic releases emanating from Doe Run’s metallurgical 
facility.  For example, Doe Run claims the Reid lawsuits allege Doe Run “failed to 
control and contain the metals and other toxic substances used and generated by the 
complex ….”  Resp. Brief at 8 (emphasis omitted).  What Doe Run omits with ellipses, 
however, is essential, as it transforms the underlying basis of the claim.  The full 
allegation provides:  
Defendants owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or used the La Oroya 
metallurgical complex and related operations and facilities, or acted in 
conspiracy with each other defendant and continue to do so in a way that 
negligently, carelessly and recklessly generated, handled, stored, released, 
disposed of, and failed to control and contain the metals and other toxic 
substances used and generated by the complex, resulting in the release of 
toxic metals and gases and other toxic substances onto and around the 
properties on which minor plaintiffs have in the past and/or continue to 
reside, use and visit, and/or were exposed, and resulting in toxic exposure to 
minor plaintiffs. 
 
Petition at 8-9; Sister Kate Reid, et al. v. Doe Run Resources Corp., et al., No. 0822-
CC08086 (St. Louis County Aug. 7, 2008) (emphasis added).4   
                                              
4 Several quotations of the original petitions in Doe Run’s brief contain similar omissions.  
Compare Resp. Brief at 30 (“Reid Lawsuits allegation that ‘Doe Run owned, operated, used, 
managed, supervised, stored, maintained, and/or controlled the properties … which contained 
and stored materials containing lead ….’”) with Petition at 4, Sister Kate Reid, et al. v. Doe Run 
Resources Corp., et al., No. 0822-CC08086 (St. Louis County Aug. 7, 2008) (“Doe Run owned, 
12 
 
Despite Doe Run’s attempts to frame the underlying claims in a more beneficial 
light, the Reid lawsuits do not allege any damages or injuries directly caused by the 
storage, use, maintenance, or other means of handling commercial lead or metals.  Each 
claim referring to any direct contact with these materials falls into one of two categories: 
some claims merely raise prerequisite allegations of Doe Run’s ownership of the La 
Oroya facility or the duty it owed to the plaintiffs,5 while the others allege the handling of 
lead and other metals resulted in the negligent release of toxic substances into the 
environment – the actual alleged cause of each plaintiff’s injury or damage.  The only 
exposure the plaintiffs had to Doe Run’s lead products was via its release of toxic 
substances into the environment.  And because Doe Run is not in the business of 
polluting the environment, these toxic emissions are not products Doe Run intends to sell.  
“That its toxic or hazardous materials are valuable products if Doe Run properly contains 
them does not make them any less ‘pollutants’ when they are abandoned and released 
                                              
operated, used, managed, supervised, stored, maintained, and/or controlled the properties and the 
waste on such properties which contained and stored materials containing lead and other toxic 
substances released from the La Oroya metallurgical complex ….”) (emphasis added).  That 
some allegations mention storage, maintenance, or usage is inapposite.  Each petition alleges 
injuries based exclusively on toxic emissions. 
5 For example, Doe Run argues the Reid lawsuits allege “[i]njuries resulted from ‘metals and 
other toxic substances it has generated, handled, stored, and disposed of at the La Oroya complex 
and related operations and facilities.’” Resp. Brief at 7 (emphasis omitted).  The actual allegation 
cited, however, makes no mention of injuries.  Rather, it states: “Defendants … owe and have 
owed a duty to minor plaintiffs who live in the vicinity of the complex, to control and contain the 
metals and other toxic substances it has generated, handled, and disposed of at the La Oroya 
complex and related operations and facilities ….”  Petition at 12, Sister Kate Reid, et al. v. Doe 
Run Resources Corp., et al., No. 0822-CC08086 (St. Louis County Aug. 7, 2008).  This 
paragraph does not allege an injury but the existence of a duty owed by Doe Run to the plaintiffs. 
13 
 
into the environment.”  Doe Run, 719 F.3d at 875.  Because these toxic lead byproducts 
are not Doe Run’s business commodities, Hocker Oil does not apply.   
The pollution exclusion unambiguously bars coverage and St. Paul has no duty to 
defend Doe Run for the Reid lawsuits.  Because this Court finds no duty to defend, St. 
Paul’s other issues on appeal are not addressed. 
Conclusion 
The judgment is reversed, and this Court enters judgment in favor of St. Paul 
pursuant to Rule 84.14. 
 
 
______________________________ 
Mary R. Russell, Judge 
 
 
 
 
All concur.