A New York appeals court ruled that gradual contamination at 26 mining sites was not covered, upholding the insurers' pollution exclusion.
On August 27, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed summary judgment for The North River Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance Company in two orders from Supreme Court, New York County. It held that pollution exclusions in the policies they issued to Vale Canada Limited (Vale) or its predecessor barred coverage for environmental cleanup at the sites.
The fight was one piece of a larger coverage action. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company brought the underlying case, and Vale appealed the rulings that went to North River and US Fire, two of several insurers named as defendants.
The dispute grew out of Vale's mining operations. The company faced potential remediation obligations to third parties over alleged contamination at 26 sites and looked to its insurers to cover the exposure. North River and US Fire pointed to the pollution exclusions in their policies and said the claims were shut out.
The case turned on how the pollution got there. The exclusions did not apply to a sudden or abrupt release. But the court found the contamination at four representative test sites came from acid rock drainage - leaching that plays out gradually, often over decades, rather than in a single event.
Vale argued Ontario law should govern how the policy wording was read. The appeals court agreed the lower court should have taken judicial notice of Canadian law and modified the ruling on that point. It went no further. Whether New York or Ontario law applied, applying New York law made no "material difference to the outcome," the court said. The insurers had shown a slow process, and Vale offered no evidence that the original discharge or seepage stemmed from a sudden event at any location.
The record was thin at each test site. Pipe Mine and Chicago Mine drew no testimony or documents supporting an abrupt release.Vale's corporate representative testified she was not aware of any abrupt events that caused pollutants to discharge.
The court also affirmed summary judgment for the insurers on 18 other sites, citing an April 11, 2025 stipulation the parties had agreed to.
One more Vale motion failed. The court upheld the denial of its bid for summary judgment on whether late notice of a claim let the insurers disclaim coverage. No one had moved to deny coverage on that ground, so a ruling would have been an advisory opinion.
