Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies


ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
Case: 11-12023
Date Filed: 4) (1 of 11/03/2011
Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-12023 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 3, 2011 JOHN LEY D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02162-WSD CLERK
RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC., a Georgia Corporation, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll versus ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (November 3, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, WILSON, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant - Appellee. Plaintiff - Appellant,
Case: 11-12023
Date Filed: 4) (2 of 11/03/2011
Page: 2 of 3
This case involves an interpretation of the commercial general liability insurance policies that Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. (“Racetrac”) purchased from Ace American Insurance Company (“ACE”). Racetrac was sued by two individuals who claim they suffered personal injuries as a result of exposure to Racetrac’s gasoline products. When ACE refused to cover Racetrac for those claims, Racetrac sought a declaratory judgment, claiming that the policies covered their excess liability. The district court found that Racetrac failed to state a claim for declaratory relief upon which relief may be granted and dismissed Racetrac’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the policies precluded coverage. Racetrac now appeals. After carefully reviewing the record and the district court’s order, we conclude that the court properly granted the motion to dismiss. The pollution exclusion provision in the policies expressly excludes coverage for injuries caused by “any substance if such substance has, or is alleged to have, the effect of making the [air] impure, harmful, or dangerous,” including the air within a structure. As the district court correctly found, Racetrac seeks coverage for the injured employees’ claims that “allege that the gasoline vapor, and specifically the toxic benzene contained in it, made the air they inhaled impure, harmful, and dangerous,
Case: 11-12023
Date Filed: 4) (3 of 11/03/2011
Page: 3 of 3
which resulted in their claimed physical injuries.” Such claims fall squarely within the policies’ pollution exclusion. We also agree with the district court that the pollution exclusion does not violate Georgia public policy since the liability insurance policies at issue are primarily intended to provide Racetrac with coverage for the countless other risks associated with operating convenience stores. AFFIRMED.
Case: 11-12023
Date Filed: 4) (4 of 11/03/2011
Page: 1 of 1
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 John Ley Clerk of Court For rules and forms visit
November 03, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES Appeal Number: 11-12023-DD Case Style: Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Ace American Ins. Co. District Court Docket No: 1:10-cv-02162-WSD Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with FRAP 41(b). The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3. Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 . Counsel appointed under the CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT must file a CJA voucher claiming compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for a writ of certiorari (whichever is later). Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs taxed against appellant. For questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number referenced in the signature block below. For all other questions, please call Tonya L. Richardson, DD at (404) 335-6176. Sincerely, JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court Reply to: Jeff R. Patch Phone #: 404-335-6161
OPIN-1A Issuance of Opinion With Costs

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (Appeal) Opinion.pdf65.73 KB

Like us on facebook!