Filed: Mar. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2082 EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHELLE GERMANO; DENNIS JACKSON; SHARON JACKSON; JASON DUNAWAY; LISA DUNAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants – Appellants, and HARBOR WALK DEVELOPMENT, LLC; THE PORTER-BLAINE CORP.; GENESIS GROUP, INC.; WERMERS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CLARK- WHITEHILL ENTERPRISES, INC.; VENTURE SUPPLY, INC.; TOBIN TRADING, INC.; TRADERSCOVE CORP.,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2082 EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHELLE GERMANO; DENNIS JACKSON; SHARON JACKSON; JASON DUNAWAY; LISA DUNAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants – Appellants, and HARBOR WALK DEVELOPMENT, LLC; THE PORTER-BLAINE CORP.; GENESIS GROUP, INC.; WERMERS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CLARK- WHITEHILL ENTERPRISES, INC.; VENTURE SUPPLY, INC.; TOBIN TRADING, INC.; TRADERSCOVE CORP., ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2082
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHELLE GERMANO; DENNIS JACKSON; SHARON JACKSON; JASON
DUNAWAY; LISA DUNAWAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
HARBOR WALK DEVELOPMENT, LLC; THE PORTER-BLAINE CORP.;
GENESIS GROUP, INC.; WERMERS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CLARK-
WHITEHILL ENTERPRISES, INC.; VENTURE SUPPLY, INC.; TOBIN
TRADING, INC.; TRADERSCOVE CORP., d/b/a The Henin Group;
PREMIER INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC., d/b/a The Henin Group;
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.,
d/b/a Henin International Services; HIGGERSON-BUCHANAN,
INC.; M&M CONTRACTING; P&P SKILLED CONTRACTORS; WORK
COMPANY, DRYWALL & PLASTER; JEROME HENIN, individually;
DAVID DANIELS, individually,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS,
Amicus Supporting Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00312-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: March 12, 2013 Decided: March 20, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Imprevento, BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, P.C.,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellants. R. Steven Rawls,
Rebecca C. Appelbaum, BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP,
Tampa, Florida; Richard A. Saunders, FURNISS DAVIS RASHKIND AND
SAUNDERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. David S.
Jaffe, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Washington, D.C.,
for Amicus Supporting Appellants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Company
(“Evanston”) and declaring that they are not entitled to
coverage under the applicable commercial general liability
(“CGL”) insurance policies for alleged drywall-related damages
to their homes and persons. In pertinent part, the CGL policies
excluded coverage for any damage stemming from “pollutants,”
which were defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal
irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes,
acids, alkalis, chemicals, electromagnetic fields and waste.”
The district court concluded that, under Virginia law, the
sulfuric gases emanating from the Chinese-manufactured drywall
were “pollutants” under the language of the policies and
therefore declared that Appellants were not entitled to recover
any damages stemming therefrom. Appellants filed this appeal,
challenging the district court’s interpretation of the policies.
While the appeal was pending in this Court, the
Supreme Court of Virginia, in response to questions certified to
it by this court in another appeal, decided that sulfuric gas
released by defective drywall was a “pollutant” under the terms
of an identically phrased insurance policy also controlled by
Virginia law. TravCo Ins. Co. v. Ward,
736 S.E.2d 321, 328-30
(Va. 2012). Both Evanston and Appellants agree, and we concur,
3
that the decision in TravCo warrants affirmance of the district
court’s judgment in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4