Carbon monoxide death liability claim fails on pollution exclusion (US)

Two tenants of a second-floor unit in an apartment building (condominium) in Florida USA died in their bedroom, after inhaling carbon monoxide gas whilst asleep.

Carbonmonoxide death liability claim fails on pollution exclusion (US)

Two tenants of a second-floor unit in an apartment building (condominium) in Florida USA died in their bedroom, after inhaling carbon monoxide gas whilst asleep. The gas was believed to have come from a car in the unit’s garage. It seeped into the air-conditioning system of the unit and entered the bedroom through the system’s ducts or vents. The liability insurance claim failed because of a pollution exclusion in the policy. 

The Homeowners Association (HOA) in control of the condominium was sued for wrongful death. The insurers approached the court for a declaration that they owed no duty to defend the action on behalf of the HOA. The insurance policy contained a Total Pollution Exclusion which included aBuilding Heating, Cooling and Dehumidifying Equipment Exception.

 

According to the exclusion, the policy does not cover bodily injury which would not have occurred but for “the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time”. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant under the policy.  

 

The exception provides that the exclusion does not apply to bodily injury if sustained within the insured’s building caused by smoke, fumes, vapour or soot produced by or originating from equipment that is used to heat, cool or dehumidify the building.

The courtrejected the HOA’s argument that the carbon monoxide fell within the exception ontwo bases.  Firstly, the State Complaint filedby the HOA did not allege that the carbon monoxide was produced by ororiginated from the building equipment (it stated that the carbon monoxide wasbelieved to have come from the car). Secondly, the carbon monoxide did not originate from theair-conditioning ducts or vents merely because it travels through them.

The exception did not apply, and the policy did not provide cover. The court order can be accessed here

More News Stories

March 12, 2021
Important Information on the recent Microsoft Exchange Server Vulnerabilities

Over 30,000 organisations have been affected by the recent Microsoft Exchange Server vulnerability announced last week.

Read story
December 22, 2020
Cyber Crime: Ensuring Your Clients are Appropriately Covered

As technology becomes one of the primary means for people to do business, connect with each other, do their shopping and sometimes even host a wedding, the prevalence of criminal attacks perpetrated by way of a computer is certainly on the rise.

Read story
December 17, 2020
Business interruption insurance cover hinges on policy wordings

Despite early court rulings in favour of policyholders, some businesses with COVID-19-related losses will not have business interruption cover

Read story