A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
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…
The case before the Ninth Circuit asked whether the pollution exclusion applied to carbon monoxide poisoning. See Cent. Sur. Co. v. Casino West., Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 56958 (9th Cir. April 6, 2012). The accident occurred in a Nevada casino and hotel owed by Casino West.
The fumes were created by a…
In an entertaining decision authored by Judge Posner, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of coverage based upon the pollution exclusion. Scottsdale Indem. Co. v. Village of Crestwood, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5069 (7th Cir. March 12, 2012).
In 1985, Crestwood's mayor and other Village officials learned from state environmental authorities…
The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011) [Evanston Decision here].
Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides…
The California Court of Appeals considered the reach of a pollution exclusion in a first party property policy. See The Villa Los Alamos Homeowners Assoc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2011).
A prior case from the California Supreme Court was instructive. In MacKinnon …
A thoughtful opinion concerning the allocation of indemnity obligations between an insurance company and a policyholder was rendered in Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106275 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2010).
At some point over the last several decades, an oil tank on the…
In Dyncorp v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's , London, No. 08C-09-218, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 412 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2009), the court considered whether a duty to defend arose in several underlying suits for damage caused by aerial spraying over Colombia.
Pursuant to a contract with the United States government…
No Hawai`i appellate court has ever interpreted the meaning of the CGL policy's pollution exclusion. The Ninth Circuit recently issued an Order certifying a question to the the Hawai`i Supreme Court regarding its interpretation of the pollution exclusion. See Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 08-15369 (9th Cir. July 15, 2009) [here…
