A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
Although the policy excluded pollution, the negligence that preceded the escape of the pollution was the efficient proximate cause, negating the impact of the pollution exclusion. Xia v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. RRG, 2017 Wash. LEXIS 443 (Wash. April 27, 2017).
Zhaoyun Xia purchased a new home in May 2006.
The insurer prevailed on summary judgment establishing it had no duty to defend the insured roofing contractor for damage caused by tar escaping from a roof. Mesa Underwriters Spec. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108444 (W.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016).
Myers contracted to do roofing work for Sireco III LLC. Myers…
The South Carolina Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for an inverse condemnation action based upon the policy's pollution exclusion. South Carolina Ins. Reserve Fund v. E. Richland County Public Service District, 2016 S. C. App. LEXIS 32 (S.C. Ct. App. March 23, 2016).
In 2010, Coley Brown filed a complaint…
In a per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that the pollution exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury caused by the insured's insulation. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Industries, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22552 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015).
The homeowners' contractors installed spray polyurethane foam (SPF)…
The court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar defense or indemnity for the insured's obligation to clean up a superfund site. Decker Mfg. Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12169 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2015).
From 1966 to 1981, Decker disposed of its waste materials at…
The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014).
Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage…
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…
Judge Kay of the Hawaii federal district court found coverage under an all-risk policy for damage caused by arsenic. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Imperial Plaza v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50904 (D. Haw. April 9, 2013).
Plaintiff had a fourth floor constructed on top of its existing…
The federal district court predicted the Missouri state courts would not exclude coverage for damages caused by a concrete sealant, TIAH. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10716 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013).
The insured was a construction clean up company. It supplied day labor and…
The New Mexico Supreme Court considered whether the word "sudden" found in the pollution exclusion of a liability policy was ambiguous. See United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 32,939 (N.M. Aug. 23, 2012).
United Nuclear operated several uranium mines in New Mexico from the 1960s through the early 1980s. At Church…
