Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • A
  • Alabama Plating Company v. United States Fid…Alabama Plating Company v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Alabama Plating Company v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company

Alabama Supreme Court
690 So. 2d 331 (1996)


Alabama Plating Company (plaintiff) operated a metal-finishing business that included electroplating operations. The electroplating process created various chemical byproducts. In order to dispose of the chemicals, Alabama Plating directed its wastewater through a treatment system approved by several entities, including the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (the department). Despite compliance with the approved procedures, the byproducts caused environmental contamination. Thereafter, the department issued directives requiring Alabama Plating to institute remediation measures. Alabama Plating subsequently requested payment from its insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty (the insurer), to cover the costs of complying with the department’s directives. The comprehensive general liability policy (CGL) provided that the insurer would pay all sums constituting damages caused by an occurrence, defined as an accident or condition that causes unintended or unexpected bodily injury or property damage. A “pollution exclusion” in the policy provided that payment would be denied in the case of damages arising from the discharge of waste, chemicals or other contaminants, but only if such discharge is not sudden or accidental. The insurer denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. Alabama Plating brought suit against the insurer, alleging wrongful denial of insurance coverage. The insurer moved for summary judgment, contending that the “sudden and accidental” exception to the pollution exclusion allowed for coverage only if the contamination at issue was caused by an abrupt, brief event. The court granted the insurer’s motion. Alabama Plating appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Concurrence/Dissent (Maddox, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial