SDV Insights

The Hartford's so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer's motion to dismiss.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy.

While I typically discuss cases concerning pollution, today I will change a few letters around and discuss pollination. The case, Unigard Insurance Co. et al. v. George Perry and Sons Inc. et al., asks whether there is coverage for a lawsuit brought against a commercial farm that is alleged to have killed off bee colonies used for pollination.

The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.

The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policy.

The Washington Supreme Court recently extended the efficient proximate cause doctrine - commonplace in first-party insurance - to a commercial general liability ("CGL") pollution claim.

In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that "a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers' potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn't extend to products containing the carcinogen."

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage.

"Stacking" is a practice that is very favorable for policyholders, especially in environmental coverage cases involving extended pollution events.

The Minnesota Federal District Court recently decided against coverage for the release of carbon monoxide from an engine compartment into the open air due to a general liability policy's pollution exclusion.