Tag Archives: Pollution Exclusion

Eighth Circuit pollution-exclusion opinion a cautionary tale for natural gas industry

The interpretation and application of a pollution exclusion in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy is often a fact-specific and jurisdiction-specific exercise. That said, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s recent decision, applying North Dakota law and interpreting such an exclusion in a CGL policy, should command the attention of the entire … Continue Reading

Why the Hostility?

What does it mean to call a fire “hostile”? This question has become increasingly important for insurance policyholders, such as those seeking coverage for fires and explosions following crude-by-rail or chemical-by-rail accidents. When an explosion or fire event results in death, personal injuries or property damage, insurance companies may rely on a pollution exclusion. These exclusions may contain … Continue Reading

If not “determinative,” then at least compelling: Other, specific exclusionary language available on market undermines application of pollution exclusion

Recently, in a non-precedential order, an Illinois appellate court correctly held that a “Pollution and Health Hazard Exclusion” in a commercial general liability policy did not preclude coverage for mold-related bodily injury claims. See In re Liquidation of Legion Indem. Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 140452-U (Sept. 30, 2015) (applying Texas law). That court held, … Continue Reading

Host of insurance-coverage questions tied to Legionnaires’ disease

A recent outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in New York has, according to published news reports, been responsible for the death of 12 people. According to those same reports, more than 100 other people have become ill as a result of the outbreak, which has been traced to a rooftop cooling tower(s). For better or worse, … Continue Reading

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s misapplication of the pollution exclusion and disregard for policyholders’ business and purpose in purchasing insurance

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two opinions in which it held that pollution exclusions barred coverage for third-party claims resulting from alleged contamination of water due to the seepage of cow manure and septage, respectively. As addressed in Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson's dissents to the two decisions, the majority's opinions in both cases - Wilson Mutual Insurance Co. v. Falk, Nos. 2013AP691, 2013AP776, 2014 WL 7375656 (Wis. Dec. 30, 2014), and Preisler v. General Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2012AP2521, 2014 WL 7373070 (Wis. Dec. 30, 2014) - were faulty for a number of reasons.… Continue Reading

Court’s reasoning that “bacteria” is not a “pollutant” favorable for policyholders in other cases

Insurance companies often look to the pollution exclusions in their commercial general liability policies in attempts to exclude coverage for many types of claims. They will try to fit all sorts of things within the definition of "pollutants." Just last Friday, though, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana made that more difficult, offering a common-sense understanding of the term "pollutant." That court found that "under Louisiana law, Legionella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria" - the bacteria which cause Legionnaire's disease - "do not qualify as 'pollutants' within the meaning of [pollution] exclusions."… Continue Reading

General Liability Insurance and Disease-Related Claims

The Ebola crisis has raised numerous issues worldwide. Many of the concerns sparked by the crisis - particularly in the insurance coverage context - are not unique to that disease, however. For example, coverage concerns relating to Ebola-related claims would be similar to those for many other disease-related claims. Many different types of insurance policies, including general liability policies, could be implicated by such claims.… Continue Reading
LexBlog