Tag: Pollution Exclusion

Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

Paul Briganti | White and Williams On December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange… Continue reading Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii     The Mississippi Supreme Court found the pollution exclusion ambiguous under the facts presented. Omega Protein, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2022 Miss. LEXIS 90 (Miss. March 31, 2022).     Omega Protein, Inc., entered a contract with Ascu-fab to perform welding and other fabrication work at their… Continue reading Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

Lorielie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott and Rachel E. Hudgins | Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and… Continue reading Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Pollution Exclusion

Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott and Rachel E. Hudgins | Hunton Andrews Kurth In this post in the Blog’s Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series, we discuss the court’s ruling on the pollution exclusion in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The exclusion at issue was the standard qualified pollution exclusion used… Continue reading Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Pollution Exclusion

Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo | Hunton Andrews Kurth | April 15, 2019 The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an… Continue reading Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion