The Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that a defense was owed to a farmer for pollution allegedly caused by use of manure. Wilson Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falk, 2013 Wis. App. LEXIS 1931(Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2013).
The insured used manure from cows as fertilizer for his fields. The state Department of Natural Resources notified the insured that manure from the farm had polluted a local aquifer and contaminated the water wells of neighbors. Several neighbors demanded compensation. Wilson Mutual filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The trial court found that the pollution exclusion applied because a reasonable insured would understand manure to be waste.
The appellate court agreed that manure could technically fit within the language of the pollution exclusion because it was gaseous, often liquid, solid in winter, and could be both an irritant and a contaminant. Nevertheless, a reasonable interpretation of the exclusion was required because otherwise, everyday incidents could be characterized as pollution.
Therefore, the appellate court found that the pollution exclusion did not apply to manure used as fertilizer on a farm. A reasonable farmer would not consider manure to be a "pollutant," an "irritant," a "contaminant," or "waste." To a farmer, manure was liquid gold. Further, the policy already covered the insured's manure tank, manure pump, two manure spreaders, and two manure tankers.
