Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Wagner v. Erie Insurance
577 Pa. 563
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 2004-04-29
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding, in the same situation, that gasoline was unambiguously a pollutant according to the terms of the policy
- finding waiver where appellee did not raise issue in cross-motion for summary judgment, and thus trial court did not have opportunity to address it
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wagner v. Erie Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 13 opinions
Thomas F. WAGNER, Individually and Trading as Blue Bell Gulf, Appellant
v.
ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued October 20, 2003. Decided April 29, 2004.*1275 ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Order of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Justice LAMB did not participate in the decision of this case.
Justice NIGRO files a dissenting statement in which Justice NEWMAN joins.
Justice NIGRO dissenting.
Unlike my colleagues, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and order Appellee Erie Insurance Company to cover the losses that Appellant Thomas F. Wagner, individually and trading as Blue Bell Gulf, sustained when an underground pipe at his gasoline station ruptured, releasing gasoline into the soil under his and neighboring properties. I simply cannot accept the Superior Court's position that an insurance company providing general liability coverage for an insured's operation of a gasoline station can deny coverage for damages from a gasoline leak based on a general pollution exclusion, when that exclusion is buried on page twenty-five of the policy and the policy's definition of "pollutant" does not specifically reference gasoline.
Justice NEWMAN joins.