Indiana Supreme Court Thrice Finds “Absolute Pollution Exclusion” Is Ambiguous

The Indiana Supreme Court has held, for the third time, that the “absolute pollution exclusion” is ambiguous, affirming summary judgment in favor of coverage.

In State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flexdar, Inc., the insured discovered a chemical called TCE (trichloroethylene) in the soil and groundwater both on and off the site of its manufacturing plant.  The Indiana Department of Environmental Management informed Flexdar that Flexdar would be liable for the costs of cleanup.  Flexdar then sought defense and indemnification from State Auto under its CGL policy.  State Auto defended under a reservation of rights and filed a DJ action to determine its obligations, contending that the TCE cleanup fell under the “absolute pollution excluison.”  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Flexdar on the grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Here’s the exclusion language in issue:

This insurance does not apply to:
. . . .
f. Pollution
(1) “Bodily injury” or “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants:
(a) At or from any premises, site or location which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or rented or loaned to, any insured;
. . . .
(2) Any loss, cost or expense arising out of any:
(a) Request, demand or order that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize, or in any way respond to, or assess the effects of pollutants; or
(b) Claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying or neutralizing, or in any way responding to, or assessing the effects of pollutants.
Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.

The Supreme Court noted that it had twice previously found the same or similar language to be ambiguous, first in 1996 and then again in 2002.  The Court pointed out that “this clause cannot be read literally as it would negate virtually all coverage…In other words, practically every substance would qualify as a ‘pollutant’ under this definition, rendering the exclusion meaningless.”  The Court noted that while some courts have developed “literal” and “situational” approaches to analyzing whether a substance was a “pollutant,” Indiana instead focuses on the contract language itself.  The question was therefore “whether the language in State Auto’s policy is sufficiently unambiguous to identify TCE as a pollutant.”  The Court concluded it was not.

So, what will be the outcome?  At a minimum, Indiana pollution exclusions are probably going to get a lot longer.

And here's your Indiana pollution exclusion...

About Brian Jones

I represent clients in all aspects of business litigation, but focus my practice on complex litigation and arbitration matters concerning insurance and reinsurance, antitrust, class actions, securities, real estate disputes, and contract matters. I am the co-chair of the Bose McKinney & Evans Insurance Group. I was listed in the 2017 and 2016 "Best Lawyers in America" for Insurance Coverage and named a "Rising Star" in Insurance Coverage by Super Lawyers in Indiana in 2014. I was also named a "Rising Star" in Business Litigation by Super Lawyers in Indiana in 2013 and 2012, and a 2010 “Rising Star” in Business Litigation in Texas. I am a member of the State Bars of Indiana and Texas, the Defense Research Institute, a former member of the Pro Bono College of the State Bar of Texas, and I am licensed to practice before all state courts in Indiana and Texas, as well as all federal courts in Indiana, the Northern, Western, and Southern Districts of Texas, the Northern District of Illinois, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits. I received my bachelor’s degree, cum laude, in political science and my master’s degree in teaching from Trinity University, where I was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. I received my doctor of jurisprudence degree from the University of Texas School of Law, where I was the Director of Communications for the Legal Research Board and a member of the Phi Delta Phi Honor Society. Before attending law school, I taught high school geography, government and economics in San Antonio, Texas.
This entry was posted in Commercial Lines, Coverage Defenses, Pollution Exclusion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Share your thoughts

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s