Queen City Farms, Inc., Respondent v. the Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Petitioners

Summary

The court held that the policies' references to damage that occurs "unexpectedly and unintentionally" require a subjective inquiry into the insured's actual expectations and intentions, and that the insured bears the burden of proving the absence of expected or intended harm. It further held that the pollution exclusions are ambiguous, that the relevant polluting event is the escape of contaminants from a place of containment into the environment, and that coverage may exist for unexpected and unintended releases. The court upheld coverage under the Lloyd's policies, rejected the insurers' misrepresentation defenses, and remanded for factual determinations concerning the remaining policies. Justices Andersen, Utter, Madsen, and Guy dissented or concurred in part, principally disputing the treatment of the pollution exclusions and the Lloyd's misrepresentation defense.