Is the Absolute Pollution Exclusion Really Absolute? Hint: NO!
Christopher J. Boggs, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, LPCS, AAI, APA, CWCA, CRIS, AINS
March 15, 2017
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Dispelling the "Absolute Pollution Exclusion" Myth is the goal of this webinar. To that end, let's answer one question using two situations.
Are these claims excluded by the CGL's "absolute pollution exclusion"?
- A customer slips and falls in a grocery store after a bottle of Clorox falls off the shelf, breaks open, and puddles in the middle of the aisle.
- An HVAC contractor improperly seals a pipe allowing oil to leak, filling a basement with heating oil.
Carriers that believe the CGL's "absolute pollution exclusion" – the "APE" – is, in fact, absolute may try to apply the big APE to these claims. After all, the exclusion is called "absolute."
Well, the exclusion isn't nearly as "absolute" as these carriers believe. Read the policy closely and you'll find seven, or maybe eight, explicit or implicit exceptions within the pollution wording. And as we all know, exceptions to exclusions act to give coverage back to the insured.
There IS coverage for pollution-related losses in the unendorsed CGL.
During this webinar, we tear into, or tear apart, the so-called "absolute pollution exclusion." Beyond a detailing of the exclusion and its exceptions, we:
- Discuss and detail some key terms and concepts found within and applicable to the "absolute" pollution exclusion;
- Define "pollutant";
- Detail the need for a "causal connection" between the release of a pollutant and damage; and
- Introduce the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion.
Register today for this webinar; you might need this information sooner than you think.
For more information about this APE, read on: