|
2159 REVIEW GRANTED Under a liability policy that excluded coverage for damage attributed to seepage, pollution or contamination, except where it is caused by a sudden, unintended, and unexpected happening, the carrier was not under an obligation to defend or indemnify an insured for damage that resulted when, with the insured's knowledge, a company that it hired to dispose of toxic wastes mixed those wastes with oil and sprayed them on roads and parking lots as a dust suppressant.CitationSYNTEX v LOWSLEY-WILLIAMS (Toxic Dust Suppressant) 67 CA4 871 [See: Aerojet v Transport 17 C4 38; AIU v Superior Court 51 C3 807; Shell v Winterthur 12 CA4 715, T/AT 3/93; Travelers v Superior Court 63 CA4 1440, T/AT 6/98]
|
|
