Peace v. Northwestern National Insurance Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
596 N.W.2d 429 (1999)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Kevin Peace (plaintiff), a minor, lived with his mother in a rented apartment owned by Djukic Enterprises (Djukic). The Milwaukee health department inspected the building and found loose, peeling, flaking, and chipped lead paint. Djukic was ordered to remove the paint due to the risk of lead poisoning through ingestion or inhalation of fumes, dust, and chips. Lead poisoning can cause brain damage, developmental disorders, and kidney and liver disease. Six weeks later, Djukic purchased a general liability policy from Northwestern National Insurance (Northwestern) (defendant). The policy covered bodily injury and property damage but excluded coverage when the harm arose from the release of pollutants at the insured’s premises. Pollutants include solid, liquid, and gaseous irritants or contaminants, including fumes and chemicals. Peace experienced lead poisoning, and through his guardian ad litem, sued Djukic alleging negligence and statutory claims. Citing the pollution-exclusion clause, Northwestern denied a duty to defend Djukic and sought summary judgment releasing it. Djukic filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court found for Northwestern. The court of appeals affirmed, and then reversed following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Donaldson v. Urban Land Interests. The supreme court granted Northwestern’s petition for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prosser, J.)
Dissent (Crooks, J.)
Dissent (Abrahamson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.