Sentences with phrase «pollution exclusion»

Modern policies also typically contain some type of environmental or pollution exclusion which may exclude those sorts of claims.

Our attorneys provide an analysis of coverage issues and advise our clients as to the scope and effect of pollution exclusion provisions in general liability policies.

The auto liability section of the standard commercial auto policy contains a broad pollution exclusion.

The Times Beach litigation also generated new law on insurance coverage regarding pollution exclusion clauses in insurance contracts.

Keep in mind that because most commercial insurance policies contain pollution exclusions, unless you carry Environmental Insurance, you may be uninsured against significant environmental loss exposures.

Measures to reduce air pollution could be to introduce pollution exclusion zones around schools, and promote alternative ways to do the school run aside from in the car.

To illustrate this point, Mayerson relates how his understanding of the «renewal rule» helped protect a corporate client against a sudden - and - accidental pollution exclusion added to a policy a year after it was purchased — but 20 years before the claim at issue.

While courts in other jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts have held that the same standard pollution exclusion language as that in the ICI policy does not preclude coverage for a child's injuries arising from ingestion of lead - based paint, the courts applied a variety of analyses to arrive at this conclusion.

NEW YORK — General liability insurance carriers can't use an environmental - pollution exclusion clause found in standard policies as a reason for refusing to defend property owners against tenant claims of lead - based paint injuries, a federal judge in Manhattan has ruled.

The trial court found that the pollution exclusion clause did not apply, making Hartford Fire Insurance Company liable for the claim.

Following the filing of a motion for summary judgment on numerous issues, including application of the policy's pollution exclusion in Connecticut, the plaintiff insured withdrew the action.

Recent cases include the successful defense of a «pollution exclusion» avoiding a multi-million dollar asbestos claim and a favorable settlement on a contested construction defect coverage dispute.

Represented insurers in an asbestos coverage action: successfully argued on appeal for application of excess policy pollution exclusions to asbestos - related property damage claims.

• Boliden Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.: In the first Canadian appellate court decision to interpret how a pollution exclusion in a D&O policy applied to a securities claim, the outcome surprised many and resulted in many insurers and policyholders re-examining their contractual wording.

The trial judge held that the pollution exclusion could not exclude coverage for the escape of pollutants caused by a fire.

The Court of Appeal also dealt with the issue of ambiguity that had motivated the trial judge to conclude the pollution exclusion clause should not operate in this instance.

The Court held that since the pollution exclusion clause specifically referred to property damage «caused by, or contributed to» by the release of pollutants, it meant that the policy would not cover liability associated with such a release, regardless of whether it was the sole or concurrent cause of the loss.

Virtually all commercial auto policies contain a pollution exclusion like the one found in the standard ISO policy.

The commercial auto policy covers some pollution - related claims by way of exceptions to the pollution exclusion.

An endorsement can also be used to exclude coverage — such as a pollution exclusion endorsement, which excludes damage from pollutant, unless their discharge was caused by a named peril in the policy.

These insurers have been relying on the «pollution exclusion» when breaking their promises to their insured.»

The denial was based on a pollution exclusion found in the errors and omission (E&O) policy.

ICI claimed it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Owner, stating that the insurance policy contained a pollution exclusion which precluded coverage for this type of claim.

Since the court found the insurance policy ambiguous, it construed it in favor of the insured - the Owner - and therefore, the court held that the pollution exclusion contained in the ICI policy did not preclude coverage for the child's injuries.

While this does not mean that ICI definitely will have to defend or indemnify the Owner, it does mean that the pollution exclusion clause itself does not prevent coverage.

A federal appellate court has considered whether an insurance company properly denied coverage to a claim submitted by a real estate brokerage based on a pollution exclusion found in the policy.