loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Eleventh Circuit Reaches Different Conclusions While Examining Pollution Exclusion


The Eleventh Circuit recently examined two insurance coverage cases involving the applicability of the pollution exclusion.  In one case it held that sewage was not a pollutant, but in the other case it held that storm water was a pollutant.  These cases provide guidance to policyholders who may face a pollution exclusion argument from their carrier in the Eleventh Circuit.    In the case Evanston Insurance Company v. J&J Cable Construction, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that damage caused by a sewage leak was not barred by the pollution exclusion. (Case No. 17-11188, April 20, 2018).  The court looked to a prior Alabama case that distinguished industrial waste from residential sewage.  However, the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in the case Centro Development Corp. v. Central Mutual Insurance Company (Case No. 17-13489, April 27, 2018).  There, the Eleventh Circuit found that storm water was a pollutant excluded by the policy’s pollution exclusion.  The court looked to a Georgia Supreme Court case that held that a pollutant did not have to be specifically named in the policy in order for the exclusion to apply, as was the case in the Central Mutual policy.    These decisions serve as a good reminder that the Eleventh Circuit will look to precedent from the state law that governs the coverage dispute.  In addition, whether a pollutant is tied to industrial waste may be a determining factor for the application of the pollution exclusion in the Eleventh Circuit.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Privilege and Work Product in Insurance Coverage Disputes

September 3, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, insurance

‘Sudden and Accidental’ Discharges May Avoid the Pollution Exclusion

May 28, 2019 | Environmental, Policyholder Protection, Remediation, commercial-general-liability

‘Sudden and Accidental’ Discharges May Avoid the Pollution Exclusion

May 28, 2019 | Environmental, Policyholder Protection, Remediation, commercial-general-liability

Municipalities Beware: Inverse Condemnation Exclusions May Affect Coverage

January 17, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, insurance, policy

Minnesota Court of Appeals Confirms Agent Comments Can Bind Insurer

May 25, 2018 | indiana-insurance-coverage, Policyholder Protection

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
coverage dispute
insurance coverage
pollution exclusion
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.