The Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed and reversed the Georgia Court of Appeals on the question of whether lead paint is a “pollutant” for purposes of an exclusion within a commercial general liability. In a recent case, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith, a tenant sued her landlord for personal injury after her daughter ingested lead-based paint found in the home. The landlord’s commercial general liability insurer brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the personal injury claim was excluded under the policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. See 2016 WL 1085397 (Ga. Mar. 21, 2016). The policy defined “pollutant” as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” Id. at *2. Even though policy exclusions are supposed to be interpreted narrowly under Georgia law, the Georgia Supreme Court held that lead-based paint was a “pollutant” under the commercial general liability policy at issue. In doing so, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Georgia Court of Appeals, which had previously held that the policy did not unambiguously include lead-based paint as a pollutant under the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Georgia Court of Appeals looked to other jurisdictions that had held ingestion of lead-based paint did not fall under similarly worded pollution exclusions. In a matter of first impression, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed. They relied on a 2008 decision, Reed v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, where the Georgia Supreme Court held that carbon monoxide gas was a pollutant under that policy. See 667 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. 2008). The Georgia Supreme Court reiterated in this decision that pollutants are not limited to traditional environmental pollution and the plain language of the policy should govern. The Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith decision further expands the scope of the absolute pollution exclusion under Georgia law and what can constitute a “pollutant.” Policyholders, especially residential rental companies like the insured here, should consider carefully evaluating their risk of claims relating to “pollutants” that may be excluded under the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the policy’s absolute pollution exclusion.
Georgia Supreme Court Expands Scope of Absolute Pollution Exclusion
RELATED ARTICLES
Michigan Supreme Court Holds a Contractor’s Defective Work Is an ‘Occurrence’
July 8, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Commercial General Liability
Inadvertent Construction Defects Are an ‘Occurrence’ Under the CGL Insurance Policy
February 25, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Policyholder Protection, Commercial General Liability
Does Your CGL Policy Cover Consequential Damages?
November 11, 2019 | Construction Law, Insurance Coverage
Bucking Modern Trend, Ohio Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider Whether Defective Construction Work Can Be a Fortuitous ‘Occurrence’
July 3, 2019 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Subcontractors, Appeals
‘Sudden and Accidental’ Discharges May Avoid the Pollution Exclusion
May 28, 2019 | Environmental, Policyholder Protection, Remediation, Commercial General Liability
Michigan Supreme Court Holds a Contractor’s Defective Work Is an ‘Occurrence’
July 8, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Commercial General Liability
Inadvertent Construction Defects Are an ‘Occurrence’ Under the CGL Insurance Policy
February 25, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Policyholder Protection, Commercial General Liability
Does Your CGL Policy Cover Consequential Damages?
November 11, 2019 | Construction Law, Insurance Coverage
Bucking Modern Trend, Ohio Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider Whether Defective Construction Work Can Be a Fortuitous ‘Occurrence’
July 3, 2019 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Subcontractors, Appeals
‘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
CGL Insurer Ordered to Pay Purely Economic Loss
December 21, 2018 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
When Should an Accident be an Accident?
November 27, 2017 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Four Things to Know About Certificates of Insurance
October 9, 2017 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Overcoming That Sinking Feeling
March 6, 2017 | Commercial General Liability, Policyholder Protection
Will The Fourth Circuit Overturn a Decision Finding CGL Coverage For a Data Breach?
March 24, 2016 | Data Breach, Policyholder Protection
Louisiana Federal Court Finds in Favor of Coverage for Work Required by Clean Air Act Consent Decree
August 28, 2015 | Policy, Policyholder Protection
INFRINGEMENT OF “SLOGAN” TRIGGERS THE DUTY TO DEFEND
June 11, 2015 | Duty To Defend, Policyholder Protection
Recent Decision Determines Retail Displays May Qualify as ‘Advertisements’ Under CGL Insurance Policies
March 20, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
2014 Year in Review
January 28, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
COVERAGE FOR “DISPARAGEMENT”: A POWERFUL TOOL FOR TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO DEFEND IN BUSINESS DISPUTES
December 18, 2014 | Duty To Defend, Policyholder Protection
Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Is Fertile Ground for Policyholders
June 27, 2014 | Claims, Policyholder Protection
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
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