Pollution Exclusion Deters Corporations from Polluting
Barry Zalma | March 29, 2024
In the world of business, corporations obtain commercial insurance to protect their assets, and commercial insurers customarily include exclusion provisions in their policies. Exclusion provisions dispel the notion that insurance coverage is without limits and place the insured on notice about actions or omissions that will trigger an insurer's denial of coverage. Insurance policies that include pollution exclusion provisions accomplish even more.
In Gold Coast Commodities, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am., No. 23-60087 (5th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals established the reason behind the pollution exclusion.
An insurance policy's pollution exclusion deters deliberate or negligent behavior that leads to environmental harm. When a court affirms a pollution exclusion, the insured cannot collect insurance for the claim. In this case, the Fifth Circuit protected the insurer's right to disincentivize corporations from engaging in bad faith actions with a known environmental impact.
Facts of the Case
Gold Coast Commodities, Inc., was a business corporation located in Rankin County, Mississippi. Gold Coast converted used cooking oil and vegetable byproducts into animal feed ingredients. Gold Coast was insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America.
In July 2018, the City of Brandon filed suit in the Circuit Court of Rankin County against Gold Coast and its principals, alleging that Gold Coast dumped "significant amounts of high-temperature, corrosive, low-pH wastewater into the City's sewer system." These actions were alleged to have occurred during the policy period. The City of Brandon sought to recover for damages from negligence resulting from the "discharge" or "release" of "pollutants," as the term "pollutants" was defined in the policy.
In June 2021, adding to Gold Coast's problems, the City of Jackson filed suit in the Circuit Court of Hinds County against Gold Coast and its principals, alleging that Gold Coast dumped "high temperature and corrosive" industrial waste into the city's sewer system.
Travelers denied coverage for defense or indemnity of the two suits, citing the policy's pollution exclusion as the basis for its denial of coverage.
Travelers filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that it had no duty to defend Gold Coast and its principals in the respective lawsuits. Gold Coast responded with a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Travelers had the duty to defend Gold Coast and its principals in the respective lawsuits and a duty to reimburse Gold Coast and its principals for their defense costs.
Courts' Rulings
The district court denied Gold Coast's motions and granted Travelers Insurance's motion. The district court concluded that all of the claims in the complaints were clearly and unambiguously excluded from coverage based on the policy's pollution exclusion.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the language unambiguously excluded Gold Coast's actions.
A substance is an irritant or contaminant at its core when no matter where it is, how it is contained, or whether it is in contact with something it is an irritant or contaminant. A substance can become an irritant or contaminant when it comes into contact with something and is actively irritating or contaminating it.
The court said, "The allegations in both the City of Brandon's and the City of Jackson's complaints present facts that are paradigmatic for the application of the Policy pollution exclusion."
The court went on to say that the deliberate discharge of toxic industrial waste is precisely the type of activity to which Travelers Insurance's policy pollution exclusion was intended to apply. There was no reasonable interpretation of the wastewater's form or qualities that would conclude that it was not an irritant or contaminant. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the policy was not ambiguous, and therefore, the claims were excluded from coverage.
Hence, Gold Coast did not sufficiently plead facts that triggered Travelers Insurance's duty to defend, and the district court's decision was affirmed.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit established one of the important reasons for exclusions in insurance policies like that issued to Gold Coast by Travelers Insurance. Exclusion provisions limit insurance coverage and place the insured on notice about actions or omissions that will trigger an insurer's denial of coverage. Insurance policies that include pollution exclusion provisions accomplish even more because they deter wrongful conduct. Gold Coast learned that lesson the hard way.
© 2024 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
