Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., following the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff took issue with the hearing justice's construction and/or application of the legal standard for determining the existence of ambiguity in contracts for insurance and the applicable burden of proof. The plaintiff further argued that the hearing justice erred (1) in not finding that the total endorsement and limited endorsement conflicted, rendering the policy ambiguous (2) in failing to find the policy's definition of pollution ambiguous and (3) in failing to consider extrinsic evidence when she decided whether the policy was ambiguous. <br> <br>The Supreme Court concluded that, because there was no conflict between the two, the total endorsement and limited endorsement did not render the policy ambiguous. The Supreme Court, however, held that the policy's definition of pollution was ambiguous as applied to non-party Robert O'Donnell's claims and that the hearing justice erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and in denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff on counts one, four, and five of its complaint. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. <br>