Doe Run Resources Corporation v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co, No. 21-3046 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
This insurance coverage dispute involves claims for coverage by Doe Run Resources Corporation against its insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, stemming from multiple lawsuits against Doe Run’s Peruvian subsidiary, Doe Run Peru, which allege various claims stemming from Doe Run Peru’s alleged release of toxic chemicals from a metallurgical plant. After an earlier coverage dispute in state court, where the court determined that a pollution exclusion in St. Paul’s policy precluded coverage, Doe Run filed this action alleging that additional, newly discovered facts implicated an exception to the exclusion that was not raised in the previous state court action. St. Paul filed a motion to dismiss based on issue and claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion based on issue preclusion, and Doe Run appeals.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in granting St. Paul’s motion to dismiss based on issue preclusion, and because the district court did not err, the court wrote, it need not consider the parties arguments regarding claim preclusion. The court explained that in the absence of subsequent events or circumstances representing an actual change between the prior state court action and this action, issue preclusion applies. Here, St. Paul did reconsider Doe Run’s claim for coverage when Doe Run resubmitted the claim following the nine newly filed lawsuits alleging pollution from the La Oroya plant, which alleged a new theory of liability.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. In a suit seeking coverage for claims arising from pollution at plaintiff's metal plant in Peru, the district court did not err in dismissing the suit on the basis of issue preclusion; a prior state court decision had determined that a pollution exclusion in the policy precluded coverage, and plaintiff's allegation that additional, newly discovered facts implicated an exception to the exclusion did not create a new, distinct issue when all events giving rise to the claims occurred before the filing of the first state court lawsuit; plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption that it had a full and fair opportunity to be heard in the original action. Judge Stras, concurring in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.