# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 13 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d F ire & Cas ua lt y

Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Tit an Co nt ract or s Se rv ic e, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 14 Fil ed : M ay

13 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BRIGHT, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Uni te d Fi re an d Cas ua l t y Co m pa ny (“ Uni te d” ) br ou gh t th is de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n ag ai ns t Tit an Co nt ract or s Serv ic es , In c. (“ Tit an ”), an d Tit an

co un te rcl ai m ed fo r de cl arat o r y r e li ef. Uni te d ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Tit an on Uni te d’s cl ai m an d Tit an ’s co un te rcl ai m , aswell as th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Uni te d’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Fo r th e

reas on s d is cu ss ed be lo w, we vac at e an d re m an d.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Tit an pro vi de s co ns tru ct io n- cl ean up se rv ic es , in cl ud in g c le an in g a nd sea li ng

co nc ret e flo or s. At al l rel ev an t ti m es , Tit an was in su red un de r a co m m erci al ge ne ral
l ia bi li ty in su ran ce po li cy pr ov id ed by Uni te d. The po li cy ex cl ud ed fro m co ve r a g e

“ ‘[b]od il y in jury’ or ‘ pr op ert y da m ag e’ whi ch wou ld no t hav e o ccu rred in who le or
pa rt bu t fo r th e act ua l, al le ge d or th reat en ed di sc ha rg e, di sp ers al

, se ep ag e, m ig rat io n, rel eas e or es cap e of ‘pol lu ta nt s’ at an y ti m e.” The po li cy de fin es “ po ll ut an t” as “ an y

so li d, li qu id

, ga se ou s or the rm al irrit an t or co nt am in an t, in cl ud in g sm ok e, va po r, so ot , fu m es , aci ds , alk al is , c he m ic al s an d was te .” Thi s p ro vi si on , ty pi cal ly den om in at ed
th e “ ab so lu te p o l l ut io n ex cl us io n,” ap pe ars in m an y co m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y in su ran ce po li ci es

. Se e W il li am P. Sh el le y & Rich ard C. Mas on , App li ca ti on of th e Ab s o l u t e Pol lu ti on Excl us io n to To xi c To rt Cl ai ms: W il l Co ur ts Ch oo se Pol ic

y Co ns tr uc ti on or

Deco ns tr uc ti on ? , 33 Tort & In s. L.J. 7 49 , 75 2- 53 & n .13 (19 98 ).

In Mar ch 20 09
, th ree wom en br ou gh t ne gl ig e n c e c l ai m s ag ai ns t Tit an in
Ill in oi s st at e co ur t. The y al le ge d th at on Apr il 2 0
, 2 0 0 7
, Ti ta n ap pl ie d TIAH, an acrylic co nc ret e se al an t, t o th e flo or in a po rti on of th e of fic e pa rk in whi ch th ey

wor ke d. Bec au se Tit an fai le d to ve nt il at e it s wor ks it e pr op erl y , th e TIAH in fil tra te d
th e wom en ’s of

fic e. The y were ex po se d to TIAH an d de ve lo pe d si gn ifi can t ph y si cal
ai lm en ts , in cl ud in g a cu te ch em ic al ly-in du ced ast hm a an d v oc al co rd dysfu nc ti on

.

Tit an ga ve no ti ce an d te nd ered de fen se of th e la wsu it to Uni te d pu rs ua nt to th e
po li cy

. Uni te d co m

m en ced de fen se of Tit an ag ai ns t th e ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s su bjec t to

a res erv at io n of rig ht s. Uni te d th en fil ed th is act io n se ek in g a de cl arat io n th at it di d

no t owe a du ty to de fen d or ind em ni fy Tit an ag ai ns t th e pe nd in g st at e-co ur t laws ui t
be cau se th e po li cy ’s ab so lu te p o l l ut io n ex cl us io n ba rred co ve rag e fo r th e cl ai m s

-2

-rai se d in th e la wsu it

. Uni te d al so so ug ht reco ve ry of th e co st s it had ex pe nd ed th us

far de fen di ng th e st at e-co ur t la wsu it

. Tit an co un te rcl ai m ed

, se ek in g a de cl ar at ion th at
Uni te d owe s du ti es to de fen d an d in de m ni fy it ag ai ns t th e st at e-co ur t la wsu it

. The

pa rti es fil ed cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Tit an ’s

m ot io n and de ni ed Uni te d’s, ent eri ng a jud gm en t decl ari ng th at Uni te d owes a du ty

to de fen d an d in de m

ni fy Tit an ag a i ns t th e st at e-co ur t la wsu it

. The di st ric t co ur t

reas on ed th at TI AH di d no t co ns ti tu te a “ po ll ut an t” an d, th us , th at th e ab so lu te

po ll ut io n ex cl us io n di d no t ap pl y to ex cl ud e co v e r a g e fo r th e cl ai m s rai se d in th e
st at e-co ur t l aws ui t. Uni te d ti m el y ap pe al ed bo th th e gr an t of s um m ary jud gm en t i n fav or of Ti ta n a nd th e d en ia l o f it s o wn m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

II . Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w bo th th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d it s in te rp ret at io n of th e in su ran ce po li cy de no vo

. Beth el v. Dar wi n Se le ct In s. Co

. , 73 5
F.3 d 10 35
, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er on ly if “t h e r e i s no
ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti t l e d t o jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). The pa rti es ag ree th at Mi ss ou ri su bs ta nt iv e la w
go ve rn s th is di ve rs it y act io n. As su ch

, “ we are bo un d by th e de ci si on s of th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri. If th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri ha s no t ad dr es se d an is su e, we m

us t pr ed ic t ho w t he co u r t w o u l d ru le , a nd we fo ll ow de ci si on s fro m th e in te rm ed ia te st at e co ur ts whe n th ey are th e be st ev id en ce of Mi ss ou ri la w.” Dan ni x Pai nt in g, LLC v. Sh er wi n- W il li ams Co

. , 73 2 F.3 d 90 2, 90 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Ki ng man v. Dil la rd ’s Inc

. , 64 3 F .3d 60 7, 6 15 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, an in su rer owe s a du ty to de fen d it s in su red whe ne ve r th e

co m pl ai nt in th e un de rlyin g la wsu it “ al le ge s fact s th at gi ve ris e to a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit h i n th e po li cy ’s c ov erag e.” McCo rma ck Bar on Mgmt . S er vs ., In c. v. Am. Gu ar

. & Li ab

. In s. Co

. , 9 8 9 S

. W .2d 16 8, 17 0 (Mo

. ba nc 19 99 ). “ The du ty to de fen d is
de te rm in ed by co m

pa rin g th e la ng u a g e o f th e in su ran ce po li cy wit h th e al le ga ti on s

-3

-in th e [u nd erl y in g] co m pl ai nt .” Id

. Th e p a r t i es ag ree th at th e cl ai m s rai se d in th e
st at e-co ur t la wsu it fal l wit hi n th e ge ne ral in cl us io na ry te rm s of the po li cy

. So he re, Uni te d owe s Tit an a du ty to de fen d so lo ng as th os e cl ai m s po te nt ia ll y fal l ou ts id e th e

sc op e of th e ab so lu t e p o l l u ti on ex cl us io n. Bec au se an in su rer’s du ty to de fen d is
br oa de r th an it s du ty to in de m ni fy

, id

. , if Uni te d owe s no du ty to de fen d, it li ke wis e

owe s no du ty to in de m

ni fy

, Tr ai nw re ck W

es t In c. v. Bur li ng to n In s. Co

. , 23 5 S.W .3d
33 , 44 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 7)

.

The in te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy is a qu es ti on of la w. Sc hmi tz v. Gre at
Am. A s s u ra nc e Co

. , 3 37 S.W .3d 70 0, 70 5 (Mo . b an c 20 11 ). If th e po li cy la ng ua ge is un am bi gu ou s, “ th e co nt ract wil l be en fo rced as writ te n.” Rice v. Sh el te r Mut

. In s. Co

. , 30 1 S.W .3d 43
, 47 (Mo

. ba nc 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t if th e p o l i c y la ng ua ge is am

bi gu ou s, i t wi ll be co ns tru ed ag ai ns t t he in su rer. Id

. “ An am bi gu it y

ex is t s w h en th ere is du pl ic it y , in di st in ct ne ss , or un cert ai nt y in th e m ean in g of th e la ng ua ge in th e p ol ic y . Lang ua ge is am bi gu ou s if it is reas on ab ly ope n t o d iff eren t

co ns tru ct io ns .” Jo ne s v. Mid -Cen tu ry In s. Co

. , 28 7 S.W .3d 68 7, 69 0 (Mo

. ba nc 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W he n in te rp ret in g in su ran ce po li ci es , Mi ss ou ri co ur ts “ ap pl [y ]
th e m ean in g [th at ] wou ld be at ta ch ed [to th e po li cy ] by an or di na ry pe rs on of av erag e

un de rs ta nd in g if pu rch as in g in su ran ce.” Bur ns v. Smi th

, 30 3 S.W .3d 50 5, 50 9 (Mo

. ba nc 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Thi s cas e tu rn s, th en , on whe th er an or di na ry pe rs on of av erag e un de rs ta nd in g
pu rch as ing the pol ic y wou ld co ns id er TIAH to fal l un am bi gu ou sl y wit hi n th e po li cy ’s
de fin it io n of “ po ll ut an t.” W e co nc lu de th at sh e wou ld

. The po li cy d efi ne s

“ po ll ut an t” to in cl ud e an “ irr it an t,” bu t it do es no t de fin e th e la tt er te rm

. W he n a te rm

“ is no t de fin ed i n t h e p o l i cy , . . . it is ne ces sa ry to us e th e or di na ry m ean in g of th e

wor d, as se t fo rth in th e di ct io na ry .” Sc hmi tz , 33 7 S.W .3d at 70 8; se e al so Bur ns , 30 3
S.W .3d at 51 2 n .5 (“ Thi s C ou rt l oo ke d t o t he di ct io na ry de fin it io n . . . to de te rm in e wha t th e or di na r y l a yp e rs on wou ld in te rp ret as th e m ean in g of th at wor d.” ). An
irr it an t is “ so m et hi ng th at irr it at es ,” t h a t i s , th at “ pr od uc e[s ] irr it at io n.” W eb st er’s

-4

-Thi rd New In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry 11 97 (2 00 2)

. The re can be li tt le do ub t th at TIAH

fal ls wit hi n th at de fin it io n. TIAH’ s m at e r i a l s a fet y da ta sh eet warn s th at th e 1

su bs ta nc e “ m ay pr od uc e irr it at io n to th e no se , th ro at , res pi rat or y tra ct , a n d o t h e r

m uc ou s m em

br an es ”; m ay be “ irr it at in g” to th e ey es an d sk in ; is “t o x i c ” ; an d can

cau se se rio us in

ju r y, in cl ud in g “ pe rm an en t br ai n an d ne rv ou s syste m da m ag e.”
Si m il arl y , pro m ot io na l m at eri al s fr om TIAH’ s m an uf

act ur er caut io n th at TIAH can

“ cau se irr it at io n of th e ey es an d/ or sk in ” an d th at TIAH va po rs m ig ht “ res ul t in

tra ns ie nt cen tra l ne rv ou s syste m de pr es si on .” Thi s ev id en ce sh ows cl earl y th at TIAH

pr od uc es irr it at io n. An or di na ry in su ran ce pu rch as er wou ld co nc lu de fro m th is th at
TIAH co ns ti tu te s an irr it an t an d, in tu rn , a po ll ut an t un de r th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n

e x cl us io n. Tha t co nc lu si on is bu tt res se d by th e fact th at th e fed eral Cl ean Air A c t
cl as si fie s xylen e, on e of TIAH’ s c o n s t i tu en t ch em ic al s, as a “ po ll ut an t.” Se e 42 U.S.C. § 74 12 (b )(1 ). W hi le pe rh ap s no t d is po si ti ve , fed eral st at ut or y cla ss ifi cat io n of a su bs ta nc e as a po ll ut an t can pu t an in su ran ce pu rch a s e r on no ti ce th at th e

su bs ta nc e m ig ht tri gg er th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n ex cl us io n. Se e Por te rf ie ld v. Aud

ub on In de m. Co

. , 85 6 So .2d 78 9, 80 5 (Ala

. 20 02 ); Qua dr an t Co rp

. v. Am. St at es In s. Co

. , 11 0 P.3 d 73 3, 74 1- 42 (Wash

. 20 05 ). Thu s, TIAH un a mb i g uo us ly co ns ti tu te s a
po ll ut an t u nd er t he ab so lu te po ll ut io n e xc lu si on

.

Ti ta n do es no t se rio us ly co nt es t th e fo reg oi ng an al y si s bu t in st ead co nt en d s th at su ch st ric t fid el it y to th e po li cy ’s te xt co nf li ct s wit h th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s’s d eci si on in Hoc ker Oil Co . v. Bar ker -Phi ll ip s- Ja cks on , Inc

. , 99 7 S .W .2d
51 0 (M o. Ct. App

. 19 99 ). In Hoc ker Oil

, 2,0 00 ga ll on s of gas ol in e le ak ed fro m th e in su red ’s ga s st at io n on to ad jacen t p r o p e r ty. Id

. at 51 2. The co ur t fo un d it to be

am bi gu ou s whe th er ga so li ne co ns ti tu te d a p o l l u t an t un de r th e in su ran ce po li cy ’s

po ll ut io n ex cl us io n an d th us co ns tru ed th e pr ov is io n aga in st th e in su rer. Id

. at 51 8.

Fed eral la w req ui res m an uf act ur ers to fu rn is h m at eri al sa fet y da ta sh eet s 1 id en ti fy in g th e po te nt ia l ris ks of al l “ ha zard ou s ch em ic al s” th at th e y pr od uc e or im po rt. 29 C.F.R. § 19 10 .12 00 (g ). Si m il ar l y, em pl oyers m

us t “ ha ve a sa fet y da ta sh eet in th e wor kp la ce fo r eac h h azar do us ch em ic al [th at ] th ey us e.” Id

.
-5

-The in su rer ha d is su ed th e po li cy th ro ug h it s “ Gas ol in e Dep art m en t,” id

. at 51 5, an d

th e in su red ’s bu si ne ss co ns is te d en t i rel y of op erat in g ga s st at io ns , id

. at 51 4. The

co ur t ob se rv ed th at “ it wou ld be an od di ty fo r an in su ran ce co m pa ny to se ll a li ab il it y
po li cy to a ga s st at io n th at wou ld sp eci fic al ly ex cl ud e th at in su red ’s m ajor so ur ce of
li a b i l i t y.” Id

. at 51 8. As su ch

, th e in su red reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at

ga so li ne was a “ pr od uc t it se ll s” rat he r th an a po ll ut an t. Id

. Tit an se ek s to an al og iz e th is cas e to Hoc ker Oil

, cl ai m in g th at TIAH is a “ pr od uc t it se ll s” a n d t h us th at it

reas on ab ly cou ld co nc lu de th at TIAH is no t a p ol lu ta nt

.

W e reject Tit an ’s rel ia nc e on Hoc ker Oil fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, we do ub t th at
th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri wou ld ap pl y Hoc ker Oil in th e m an ne r ur ge d by Tit an

. A s w e r e c en tl y ob se rv ed

, Hoc ker Oil ’s ap pr oa ch “ was a m in or it y po si ti on whe n ad op te d, ha s be en al m os t un ifo rm ly reject ed by ap pe ll at e co ur ts in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s,

an d ha s no t si nc e be en ci te d or refe rred to fav or ab ly by th e Su pr em e C o u r t of
Mi ss ou ri.” Do e Ru n

. Res. Co rp . v . L exi ng to n In s. Co

. , 7 19 F.3 d 86 8, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ap pl y in g Mi ss ou ri l aw an d reject in g in su red ’s rel ia nc e on Hoc ker Oil ).

In de ed

, no t ev en Mi ss ou ri’s in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co ur ts ha ve rel ie d on th is as pe ct
of Hoc ker Oil in th e fif

te en y ears si nc e th e cas e was de ci de d. Thi s sh ou ld co m e as

no su rp ris e, s i n c e H

o c k er Oil se em s ou t of st ep wit h Mi ss ou ri’s de ep ly-ent ren ch ed

ru le th at a co ur t “ m ay no t ‘creat e an am bi gu it y in or de r to di st or t th e la ng ua ge of an

un am bi gu ou s po li cy , or , in or de r to en fo rce a pa rti cu la r co ns tru ct io n whi ch it m ig ht
feel i s m or e ap pr op ria te .’ ” Id

. at 87 5- 76 (q uo ti ng Rod ri gu ez v. Gen

. Acci de nt In s. Co

. , 80 8 S.W .2d 37 9, 38 2 (Mo

. ba nc 19 91 )). Thu s, we do no t fin d Hoc ker Oil

pr ob at iv e o f ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri wo ul d d eci de th is cas e.

Seco nd

, ev en if Hoc ker Oil were to r e p r e s e n t th e be st ev id en ce of Mi ss ou ri
la w, it s un iq ue fact s di ffer su bs ta nt ia ll y fro m th os e pr es en t e d h e r e

. The in su red in
Hoc ker Oil pu rch as ed it s i ns ur an ce fr om th e in su rer’s “ Gas ol in e Dep art m en t,” and

,

as a ga s st at io n op erat or , ne arl y al l of it s li ab il it y ris k rel at ed in so m e way to ga so li ne

. Und er th os e ci rcu m st an ces , a reas on ab le in su ran ce p ur ch as er m ig ht be su rp ris ed to

-6

-di sc ov er th at it s po l i cy ex cl ud es cat eg or ic al ly al l ha rm ari si ng ou t of th e rel eas e of

ga so li ne

. Fo r th is reas on , “ th e co u r t i n H o c k er Oil ex pr es sl y li m it ed it s ho ld in g to

ga so li ne .” Doe Run
, 71 9 F.3 d at 87 4. In co nt ras t, se al in g co nc ret e flo or s rep res en ts

on ly a p or ti on —p erh ap s twen ty-fiv e pe rcen t— of Tit an ’s bu si ne ss , an d Tita n us es a

nu mb e r o f co nc ret e se al an ts ot he r th an TIAH. Tit an face s a wid e ran ge of li ab il it y ris ks un rel at ed to TIAH, an d m an y o f t h o s e ris ks wou ld fal l wit hi n th e po li cy ’s

co ve rag e. Thu s, we do no t be li ev e th at Hoc ker Oil wou ld ob li ga te us to cas t as id e th e

un am bi gu ou s t ex t o f th e p ol ic y

. 2

W e a r e m in df

ul of th e co nc ern th at an un bo un de d po ll ut io n ex cl us io n co ul d

swa ll ow up th e in cl us io n a ry pr ov is io ns of a po li cy

. Se e Pip ef it te rs W el fa re Edu

. Fun d v. W

es tc he st er Fir e In s. Co

. , 97 6 F.2 d 10 37
, 10 43 (7 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Bu t th e te xt
of th e ex cl us io n im

po se s li m it at io ns on it s own sc op e se pa rat e fro m th e de fin it io n of

po ll ut an t. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n ex cl us io n ap pl ie s on ly to ha rm cau se d by th e “d i sc ha rg e, di sp ers al

, se ep ag e, m ig rat io n, rel eas e or es cap e” of a po ll ut an t.
Thu s, th e ex cl us io n wil l no t ap pl y , ev en in cas es in vo lv in g a po ll ut an t, if th e po ll ut an t
di d no t pr op ag at e in on e of th es e en um erat ed way s. Se e, e.g

. , Por te rf ie ld

, 85 6 So .2d

at 80 5- 06 (h ol di ng th at , al th ou gh le ad pa in t co ns ti tu te s a “ po ll ut an t,” th e ab so lu te

Tit an al so ci te s Ameri ca n Na t i o n a l Pro pe rt y & Ca su al ty Co

. v. W

ya tt , 40 0 2 S.W .3d 41 7 (M o. Ct . App . 20 13 ), whi ch he ld —re lying al m os t excl us iv el y on cas es fro m ot he r juri sd ic ti on s— th at an or di na ry in su ran ce pu rch as er reas on ab l y co ul d

co nc lu de t h a t “ po ll ut an t” in cl ud es on ly tra di ti on al en vi ro nm en ta l po ll ut io n. Id

. at 42 6. Tit an do es no t ur ge us to ad op t th is swe ep in g ru le

, whi ch co nf li ct s wit h se ve ral Mi ss ou ri cas es th at ha ve ap pl ie d th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n ex cl us io n to a wid er ran ge of

su bs ta nc es

. Se e, e.g

. , Her in ge r v. Am. Fami ly Mut

. In s. Co

. , 14 0 S.W .3d 10 0, 10 5- 06 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 4) (ex pr es sl y reject in g th e arg um en t th at “ po ll ut an t” is li m it ed to
tra di ti on al en vi ro nm en ta l po ll ut io n) ; Bou le va rd In v. Co

. v. Ca pi to l In de m. Co rp

. , 27 S.W .3d 85 6, 8 5 8 ( M o

. Ct

. App

. 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th at ki tc he n gr eas e co ns ti tu te d
po ll ut an t). Giv en it s li m it ed co ns id erat io n of Mi ss ou ri cas e la w an d it s fai lu re ev en to ad dr es s co nt rary au th or it y su ch as Her in ge r an d Bou le va rd

, we do no t fin d W ya tt

es pe ci al ly in st ru ct iv e as to ho w th e Su p r e me Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri wou ld de ci de th is

cas e.

-7

-p o l lu ti on ex cl us io n di d no t ap pl y be cau se fla ki ng of le ad pa in t fro m wall s di d n o t

co ns ti tu te “ di sc ha rg e”); cf

. 9 C ou ch on In su ran ce § 12 7: 9 (3 d ed . 2 01 3) (co ll ect in g

cas es ). So “ if a ch il d were in jure d be cau se he dr an k f r o m a b o t t le of

. . . [a]
ho us eh ol d pr od uc t, ev en if th at pr od uc t pr op erl y co ul d be cl as si fie d as a ‘pol lu ta nt ,’
th e in jury wou ld no t be co ve red by th e po ll ut io n ex cl us io n be cau se th e po ll ut an t was

no t di ss em in at ed by on e of th e p r e s c rib ed m et ho ds .” Lef ra k Org

., In c. v. Ch ub b
Cu st om In s. Co

. , 94 2 F. Su pp

. 94 9, 95 4 (S.D.N.Y. 19 96 ). Si m il arl y , te xt ua l an al y si s

m ig ht al so av ert “ ab su rd res ul ts ,” su ch as th e sp ecu la ti on th at th e ex cl us io n “ wou ld
ba r co ve rag e fo r bo di l y i n ju rie s su ffer ed by on e who sl ip s an d fal ls on th e sp il le d

co nt en ts of a b o t t l e o f D r a n o.” Pip ef it te rs , 97 6 F.2 d at 10 43

. As we ha ve no te d

pr ev io us ly, th e ab so lu t e p ol lu ti on ex cl us io n wil l no t ne ces sa ril y ap pl y whe re th e

s u b s ta nc e cau si ng in

jury ha s th e po te nt ia l to irr it at e bu t ha s— li ke th e Dran o in th e hypo th et ic al —ca us ed ha rm in a m an ne r ot he r th an by irr it at in g. Se e Sa rg en t Co ns t.
Co

. v. St at e Aut o In s. Co

. , 23 F.3 d 13 24
, 13 27 (8 t h C i r

. 19 94 ) (ap pl y in g Mi ss ou ri
la w). W e be l i e v e t h a t t he se in te rp ret iv e pr in ci pl es , gr ou nd ed in th e te xt of th e 3

po li cy , su bs ta nt ia ll y li m it th e sc op e of th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n ex cl u s i o n wit ho ut
de vi at in g ra di cal ly from

it s ac tu al lan gu ag e.

Ci ti ng Sa rg en t Co ns tr uc ti on , th e di ss en t st at es th at “ th is co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly 3

co nc lu de d th at id en ti cal la ng ua ge de fin in g ‘pol lu ta nt ’ is am bi gu ou s.” Pos t at 11

. Bu t

“ [t]he qu es ti on of am

bi gu it y can no t be vie wed in th e ab st ract

. A pa rti cu la r wor d or ph ras e in an y writ in g is am bi gu ou s on ly wit h refe ren ce to so m e sp eci fic is su e.” St at e

ex re l. Mat he ws on v. Bd. of Elec ti on Co mm’rs
, 84 1 S. W. 2 d 6 3 3
, 63 5 (Mo

. ba nc 1 99 2)

. Thu s, a pa rti cu la r po li cy pr ov is io n m ay be am bi gu ou s wit h res pe ct t o t h e fact ua l si tu at io n pr es en te d by on e cl ai m bu t un am bi gu ou s as to an ot he r. Se e S t a te Far m Mut

. Aut o

. I

ns

. Co

. v. DeCa ig ne

y , 92 7 S.W .2d 90 7, 90 9- 10 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 96 ). The “ sp eci fic is su e” pr es en te d in Sa rg en t Co ns tr uc ti on —wh et he r a su bs ta nc e

co ns ti tu te s an irr it an t whe n it cau se s ha rm ot he r th an b y i r r i t at in g— is who ll y

un rel ate d to the qu es ti on pr es en te d he re. Thu s, Sa rg en t Co ns tr uc ti on do es no t co nt ro l whe th er t he ter m

“ po ll ut an t” is am

bi gu ou s as to th e fac ts of t hi s ca se

.
-8

-W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at TIAH un am bi gu ou sl y co ns ti tu te s a po ll ut an t un de r th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n e x c l u s i o n

. The di st ric t co ur t res te d it s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Tit an ex cl us iv el y on th e gr ou nd th at TIAH is no t a po ll ut an t, an d
Tit an di d no t pr es en t an y al te rn at e gr ou nd s fo r affi rm in g th at de ci si on

. Acco rd in gl y ,

we va cat e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t.

Uni te d al so a s ks th at we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of it s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Ord in ari ly, we can no t rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, be cau se it do es no t co ns ti tu te a fin al or de r. Nya ri v. Na po li ta no , 56 2 F.3 d
91 6, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); se e al so 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. Howev er, whe n a pa rty ap pe al s bo th th e de ni al of i t s mo t i o n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e ap pe ll e e , w e m ay rev ie w bo th or de rs an d, if ap pr op ria te , di rect th e en try o f su m

m ary jud gm en t in fa v o r o f t h e a pp el la nt

. Nya ri , 5 62 F.3 d at
92 2. Und er su ch ci rcu m st an ces , th e de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t “ m erg e[s ] in to ” th e fin al or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t an d th ereb y be co m es rev ie wab le

. Sw ab ac k v. Am. Inf o. Te ch s. Co rp

. , 10 3 F .3d 53 5, 5 43 (7t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t pr em is ed it s de ni al of Uni te d’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ex cl us iv el y on th e erro ne ou s co nc lu si on th at TIAH do es no t co ns ti tu te a
po ll ut an t, we va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. Howev er, we de cl in e to di rect th e en try
of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Uni te d. In ad di ti on to co nt es ti ng wh e t h e r TI AH

co ns ti tu te s a po ll ut an t, Tit an al so arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e co m pl ai nt in th e

un de rlyin g st at e-co ur t cas e di d no t al le ge th e “ di sc ha rg e, di sp ers al

, se ep ag e,

m ig rat io n, rel eas e or es cap e” of TIAH. Thi s co nt en ti on , if co rrec t, wou ld ren de r th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n ex cl us io n in ap pl ic ab le in th is cas e. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t reac h
th is is su e, an d th e pa rt i e s h a v e n o t ad dr es se d it on ap pe al

. Bec au se th is arg um en t
rai se s co m

pl ex fact ua l an d le ga l qu es ti on s, we be li ev e th at “ it wou ld be be ne fic ia l fo r th e di st ric t c o u r t t o co ns id er th is is su e in th e fir st in st an ce.” Lo ft ne ss Sp eci al iz ed
Far m Equ ip

., In c. v. Twi es tmey er , 74 2 F.3d 84 5, 85 1 (8t h Cir. 20 14 ). Acco rd in gl y ,

-9

-we va cat e th e de ni al of Uni te d’s m o t i on fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng re a s o n s , we va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Tit an an d it s de ni al of Uni te d’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

an d we rem an d th is cas e to th e di st ric t cou rt for fu rth er pro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h
th is op in io n.

BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at an am bi gu it y

ex is ts “ in th e p ol ic y

lan gu ag e as it rel at es to Tit an ’s al le ge dl y ne gl ig en t app li cat io n of TIAH to sea l t he co nc ret e fl oo r.”

Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, am

bi gu it y ex is ts in an in su ran ce po li cy “ ‘w he n th ere i s du pl ic it y , in di st in ct ne ss , or un cert ai nt y in th e m ean in g of th e la ng ua ge in th e po li cy ’”

an d “ ‘[l]ang ua ge is a mb i g u ou s if it is reas on ab ly op en to di ffer en t co ns tru ct io ns .’ ”
Dau gh he te e v. St at e Far m Mut

. Aut o. Ins

. Co

. , 74 3 F.3d 11 28
, 11 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Bur ns v. Smi th

, 30 3 S.W .3d 50 5, 50 9 (Mo

. 20 10 ) (en ba nc )). In co ns tru in g th e te rm s of an in su ran ce po li cy , t hi s co u r t “m u s t ap pl y ‘the m ean in g whi ch wou ld
be at ta ch ed by an or di na ry pe rs on of av erag e un de rs ta nd in g if pur ch as ing ins ur an ce.’”
Id

. (q uo t i n g S

e e c k v

. Geic o Gen

. In s. Co

. , 21 2 S.W .3d 12 9, 13 2 (Mo

. 20 07 ) (en
ba nc )). Add it io na ll y , un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, we st ric tl y c o n st ru e am bi gu ou s po li cy

ex cl us io ns an d li m it at io ns ag ai ns t th e in su rer. Ca pi to l In de m. Co rp

. v. 14 05 Ass oc s., In c. , 3 4 0 F

. 3d 54 7, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ti ng St an da rd Art if ic ia l Li mb, In c. v. All ia nz In s. Co

. , 89 5 S .W .2d 20 5, 20 9 (Mo . C t. App . 1 99 5) ); Bur ns , 3 03 S.W .3d at
50 9- 10

.

-1 0-Here, a reas on ab le po li cy ho ld er wou ld ex pe ct th at a li ab il it y in su ran ce po li cy

is su ed to a co nt ract or in th e b us in es s o f cl ean in g a nd sea li ng co nc ret e flo or s wou ld

co ve r in juri es su ffer ed as a res ul t of ex po su re to th e p r o d u c t s u s e d in cl ean in g an d

se al in g flo or s. As m

uc h as twen ty-fiv e pe rcen t of Tit an ’s bu si ne ss in cl ud es ap pl y in g

co nc ret e se al an t aft er th e co m pl et io n of ne w co ns tru ct io n. Thu s, si m il ar t o t h e
ga so li ne at i ss ue in Hoc ker Oil Co ., Inc . v. Bar ker -Phi ll ip s- Ja cks on , Inc

. , TIAH “ is

no t a po ll ut an t in [Tit an ’s] ey es .” 99 7 S.W .2d 51 0, 51 8 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 99 ). Rat he r, TIAH “ be lo ng s in th e en vi ro nm en t in whi ch [Tit an ] ro ut in el y wor ks ” an d “ in th at

en vi ro nm en t, [TIAH] is no t a po ll ut an t.” Id

. Fu rth erm or e, in th at en vi ro nm en t, wit h

or di na ry ve nt il at io n, th e pr od uc t can be us ed sa fel y

. If an y un cert ai nt y ex is ts as to
whe th er th e po li c y’s “p o l lu ti on ” de fin it io n ex cl ud es TIAH, th e po li cy m us t be

am bi gu ou s. Se e Dau gh he te e , 74 3 F.3 d at 11 32

. Mo reo ve r, th is co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly

co nc lu de d th at id en ti cal la ng ua ge de fin in g “ po ll ut an t” is am bi gu ou s. Se e Sa rg en t
Co ns tr

. Co

., In c. v. St at e Aut o In s. Co

. , 23 F.3 d 13 24
, 13 27 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (ap pl y in g Mi ss ou ri l aw).

Bec au se th e op erat iv e po li cy la ng ua ge is am bi gu ou s, Tit an ’s in te rp ret at io n of
th e po ll ut io n ex cl us io n la ng ua ge co n t r o ls

. The refo re, I wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-