Pollution Cleanup Coverage Inapplicable

Commercial Property	No Ambiguity
Cause of Loss	No Coverage Issues

Jeff and Cathy Stirizes (the Stirizes’) operated Deryle’s Auto Care, an auto repair shop at location one, on property owned by Mr. Stirizes’ father. They owned two properties: location two, next to location one, and their home at location three, in another part of town. Location two was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Frankenmuth Mutual, while Motorist’s Mutual provided the Stirizes’ with coverage for locations one and three through a Commercial Property (and Garage) policy and a homeowners policy, respectively.

In September 1997, a severe rainstorm affected the area near the auto shop. The site contained an underground gasoline storage tank. Water infiltrated the tank, resulting in gasoline spills that contaminated multiple properties. Additionally, contaminated runoff entered the town’s sewer system. The rainwater entered the tank because the cap on the tank’s pipe was either vandalized or knocked off by a lawnmower.

State authorities required the Stirizes to pay for damages that included cleanup costs such as spill residue removal and contaminated soil replacement. The cleanup expenses surpassed $75,000. While Frankenmuth paid its supplemental pollution cleanup policy limit of $10,000, Motorists denied the claims the Stirizes submitted under both their commercial and homeowner policies. Consequently, the Stirizes sued for coverage under both policies and also filed claims for bad faith and breach of contract. They later submitted several motions that sought summary judgment.

The trial court concluded that Motorists had no obligation to provide coverage under the Homeowners policy because that location did not sustain a direct loss. However, it also ruled that, under the Commercial Policy, there was a factual question regarding coverage under the policy’s additional coverages provision. The court determined the issue should be tried by a jury. Ultimately, the jury ruled in favor of Motorists, determining that there was no coverage obligation.

The Stirizes appealed, arguing that the trial court made the following errors:

• Failed to find the policy wording regarding cleanup coverage to be ambiguous, and allowed the matter to go before a jury
• Was mistaken in not permitting consideration of a certain dictionary definition of "vehicle," which voided the lawn mower’s possible involvement in the loss
• Erred by failing to order a new trial based on another set of loss elements alleged by the Stirizes.
• Incorrectly allowed Motorists to use multiple affirmative defenses
• Incorrectly dismissed the motion requesting homeowners coverage.

The higher court reviewed each of the Stirizes' allegations of error and, point by point, ruled against them. It concluded that the policy wording was clear and unambiguous, deemed the involvement of a jury suitable, and found no necessity to introduce a specific definition of 'vehicle.' Furthermore, a new trial was not justified. The court also determined that Motorists’ affirmative defenses were supported by the actions of the appellants and that there was no coverage issue requiring a trial for homeowners coverage. The decision in favor of Motorists made by the lower court was upheld, and the Stirizes were ordered to pay the court costs for both sides.

Jeff Stiriz, et al., Appellants, v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee, Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, No.F-01-010. Filed March 29, 2002. 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1468. Affirmed. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 7638