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

October 12, 2021
Camargue | Brit Announcement

Camargue Underwriting Managers (“Camargue”) announced that Brit Insurance Holdings Limited (“Brit”), the global specialty insurer and reinsurer, has acquired a further interest in Camargue, taking its ownership to 100% of the business.

Read story
October 8, 2021
Can Covid 19 be used as a supervening impossibility defence?

Covid 19 has been in the spotlight for an extended period and will probably continue to be a lively topic of discussion for the foreseeable future. The Covid pandemic has undoubtedly had a negative impact on businesses resulting in the failure to perform contractually.

Read story
May 20, 2021
The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Black Swan event & Claim trends

The revolutionary idea that defines the boundary between modern times and the past is our ability to understand and manage risk - it converted the unknown future from an enemy into an opportunity (Bernstein Against the Gods – The Remarkable Story of Risk).

Read story