More Pollution – 2
Whether the pollution exclusion language precludes coverage for the injuries suffered by a plaintiff is based on the terminology used in the exclusion. As a matter of law, one court found that the absolute pollution exclusion does not exclude coverage for injury resulting from exposure to fuel fumes in a confined area in a workplace. The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the pollution exclusion in the context of carbon monoxide from a faulty residential heater in Andersen, 93 Ohio St.3d 547, 2001- Ohio-1607, 757 N.E.2d 329. The genesis of the exclusion was to exclude intentional polluters from protection from the results of their improper or illegal conduct. The Andersen court then noted that, based on the purpose and history of that exclusion, the insured could reasonably believe that residential situations would not be excluded unless the insurer specified the exclusion. The Andersen syllabus states: “Carbon monoxide emitted from a residential heater is not a ‘pollutant’ under the pollution exclusion of a commercial general liability insurance policy unless specifically enumerated as such.” In Ohio, the court therefore concluded that aircraft fuel fumes that are confined to the tanker during repairs, as alleged in this action, are not pollutants under the exclusion clause.
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.