Fruit of the Loom v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
State: Illinois
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-95-1869
Case Date: 09/17/1996
1-95-1869
FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC., ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, )
and TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE )
COMPANY, ) Honorable
) Albert Green,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE HARTMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal concerns environmental pollution at a plant Fruit of the Loom,
Inc. (FOTL) formerly owned in Bridgeport, Connecticut. FOTL sought a declaratory
judgment against defendants Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) and
Transportation Insurance Company (Transportation) for failing to defend it in
connection with the subject pollution. Travelers and Transportation filed
answers and affirmative defenses. Travelers also filed a counterclaim seeking
a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify FOTL.
Following cross-motions for summary judgment between Travelers and FOTL,
the circuit court initially granted partial summary judgment for FOTL but, upon
motion for reconsideration, vacated its earlier order and granted partial summary
judgment for Travelers instead. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment
for Transportation as well. FOTL appeals.
The issues presented include whether (1) a "suit" was filed giving rise to
the insurers' duties to defend; (2) defendants are estopped from raising
noncoverage as a defense where the underlying action was settled before either
defendant filed a declaratory judgment action; (3) defendants' "intentional
damage" exclusions bar coverage; (4) FOTL breached its duty to notify; (5)
defendants' "pollution exclusions" bar coverage; and (6) FOTL waived its extra-
contractual claims by not raising them on appeal. We need address only issue
one, under point I of this opinion, and issue five, under point II of this
opinion, for disposition of this appeal.
From the mid-1950s to the late 1970s FOTL, through a former subsidiary,
Universal Manufacturing Corporation (Universal), operated a leased facility in
Bridgeport (Bridgeport plant) to manufacture electrical capacitors. Universal
used low-chlorinated liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to impregnate the
capacitors. One such agent, Aroclor 1242, was used until approximately 1972;
another, Aroclor 1016, was used until 1978. PCBs, dielectric compounds that
increase the efficiency of capacitors, are essentially insoluble in water. The
Bridgeport plant initially used 55 gallons of PCBs each week to impregnate its
capacitors, which rose to approximately 2,000 gallons per week prior to its
discontinued use of PCBs in February 1978.
Universal purchased the PCBs from Monsanto Company (Monsanto) which, as
early as 1963, placed warning labels on its Aroclor products concerning toxicity,
and distributed product bulletins informing customers of toxicity and safe
handling of the product. In the late 1960s, Monsanto discovered PCBs' harmful
effects on the environment of which it informed Universal in March 1969.
Monsanto specifically advised Universal to keep all chemicals well contained and,
subsequently, to exercise the highest degree of control in its storage of PCB
products. In May of 1970, Monsanto began to label Aroclor 1242 with a caution
stating "[e]xtreme care should be taken to prevent any entry into the environment
through spills, leakage, use, disposal, vaporization or otherwise." Aroclor 1016
was similarly labeled. Monsanto's warnings about the dangers of PCBs also were
placed on its shipping documents and invoices. In February of 1970, however,
Monsanto notified Universal that low-chlorinated PCBs (less than 54%) "have not
been found in the environment and appear to present no potential problem to the
environment." Aroclor 1016 contained 42% chlorine. In July of 1971, Monsanto
sent a product bulletin to Universal, urging that "every care should be taken by
users of PCB-containing products to prevent entry into the environment ***." The
bulletin proposed nine guidelines for users of PCBs to follow.
The Bridgeport plant used large amounts of lower-chlorinated PCBs to
impregnate the capacitors, about one million pounds each year. Some of these
PCBs escaped from the capacitor impregnation room through the wood and steel
flooring, down into the underlying oil reclamation room where it leached into the
concrete slab beneath the plant and leached through the concrete into the soil
and groundwater beneath the oil reclamation room. The "source point" for this
contamination was the capacitor impregnation area at the Bridgeport plant. It
was an ongoing process.
A Universal foreman, Robert Delvy, testified that PCB drippage occurred all
the time; it was an ongoing problem to keep certain areas clean. He later
testified that the drippage occurred occasionally and that the drippage was
always cleaned up because "it was slippery and somebody could fall." Universal
used chipboard to absorb the oil and "spent tons of money trying to keep the
floor in reasonably good condition." Some drippage soaked through a protective
floor to the underlying wood floor and into the basement area. Delvy stated that
during the early 1980s, Universal made several efforts to clean up the PCB
contamination and that material from years before was contaminated, including
wood, walls and floors.
Universal had stored PCB drums in its plant parking lot at one time; it
excavated most of the parking lot in an effort to clean up PCB contamination.
In the past, Universal poured PCBs into the sewer drains. Delvy "pumped probably
3 or 400 gallons right out an exhaust port of a vacuum pump out onto the driveway
and down the street and [it] ran into sewer drains and [it] ran into the railroad
viaducts on more than one occasion." Delvy poured PCBs into the external drains
in the plant; he and "other people" did this as a practice for a time when he was
young until he was stopped. In the 1960s, the practice of pouring PCBs into the
sewer was discontinued. Delvy did not know whether the drippage of PCBs was
causing property damage.
Despite Universal's precautionary measures, pipe leaks and overflows
continually occurred in the impregnation area, for example, when "somebody forgot
to put a clamp on a chamber door" or when a "bottom clamp was left open." When
significant spills occurred, the employees used "speedy dry"; when lesser amounts
spilled on the floor, the chipboard was "put there to soak it up." Employees
often got PCB oil on their shoes and tracked the oil throughout the plant, which
was "not specifically" cleaned up.
Although one Monsanto employee reported that the Bridgeport plant was very
clean, other Monsanto employees were concerned about the spillage at the plant.
A Monsanto report indicated that Universal was losing about "6
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies