Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
A-One Oil Company vs. The Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company
Year: 1997
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 95-4397
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • New York

Insurance company should not be able to avoid its duty to defend and indemnify based on a pollution exclusion when damage sustained was result of replacement of an old heater in a private residence. Exclusion, as applied does not meet reasonable expectations of insured.
Belt Painting v. TIG Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 18328/00
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • New York

New York State law should limit the application of ISO’s standard-form pollution exclusions to industrial pollution of the environment and it should not be applied to avoid liability for routine premise/operations claims.
Cold Creek Compost, Inc., et.al vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A114623
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

This case involves the proper scope and application of the “reasonable expectations doctrine.” Composting facilities create offensive odors in the ordinary course of business by composting mainly “green materials.” A reasonable policyholder under these circumstances would not consider the odors produced by its operations to…
Cook, Heidi Sue vs. American States Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Case Number: 35941-0-1
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Washington
Deni Associates of Florida vs. State Farm
Year: 1997
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Coverage
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Florida
Ducote, Sr., Craig vs. Koch Pipeline Company, LLC
Year: 1997
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 98-C-0942
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Louisiana

Public policy requires that Standard-form, industry-wide pollution exclusions should be interpreted narrowly so as not to yield overbroad and unintended or absurd restrictions on insurance coverage.
Fleming vs. USAA
Year: 1996
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Oregon

UP filed a petition supporting review urging that the key definition of “pollutants” employed in ithe subject nsurance policies were so overbroad as to be meaningless.
Foreign Car Center vs. Travelers Indemnity
Year: 1997
Court: United States District Court, Massachusetts
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Massachusetts

Drafting history; polluter’s exclusions; expected or intended
Foster-Gardner, Inc. vs. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
Year: 1996
Court: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Division, California
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

PRP letters as suits; polluter’s exclusion
Insurance Commissioner of CA vs. Golden Eagle Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: A104076
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California
International Recovery Corporation vs. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
Year: 1994
Court: Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
Case Number: 95-1852
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Florida

Absolute polluter’s exclusion; inconsistent coverage positions
Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board vs. American States Insurance Company
Year: 1995
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Case Number: 96-510
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Iowa

Polluter’s Exclusion; drafting history
Mesa Operating Company vs. California Union Insurance Company
Year: 1997
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District
Case Number: 05-06-00986-CV
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Texas

The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the insurance industry represented that the State Board of Insurance understood the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not reduce existing coverage for pollution damages that were neither expected nor intended.
Larsen Oil Company v. Federated Service Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: No. 94-35891
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Oregon
Lititz Mutual Insurance Company vs. Steely
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Middle District
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Reasonable expectations; “absolute” pollution exclusion.
Maremont Corporation vs. Chesire, Edward William
Year: 1995
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: 96-0146
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Illinois

Estoppel; inconsistent coverage positions; public policy; clean-up costs as damages.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Richardson
Year: 2002
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case Number: 01-SP-1451
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • District of Columbia

Court should consider the historical circumstances surrounding the drafting of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion (APE) and limit its application to long-term industrial pollution of the environment and should not allow insurance companies to apply the APE to cases that do not involve environmental pollution. UP…
Round Rock Plaza Venture and Robert Tiemann vs. Maryland Ins. Co.
Year: 1995
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District
Case Number: 03-95-00108-CV
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Texas