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

   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

    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