Follow Us

Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Lead-Paint Claims in VT and GA

Thirty years after its introduction, the absolute pollution exclusion continues to be the subject of vigorous litigation, recently reaching the supreme courts of Vermont and Georgia.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Thirty years after its introduction, the absolute pollution exclusion continues to be the subject of vigorous litigation, recently reaching the supreme courts of Vermont and Georgia. In December 2015, the Vermont Supreme Court issued its decision in Whitney v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co., No. 2015-073, 2015 WL 8540432 (Vt. Dec. 11, 2015), in which it refused to limit the absolute pollution exclusion to “traditional” environmental claims. Many had wondered whether the Georgia Supreme Court would follow suit, which it did in its recent ruling in Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. S15G1177, 2016 WL 1085397 (Ga. Mar. 21, 2016), reaffirming its earlier determination that the exclusion is not subject to a limiting gloss arising out of its original purpose of reinforcing the earlier qualified pollution exclusion. Cf. Reed v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 284 Ga. 286 (2008). Indeed, both cases find that the injury-causing agent falls within the definition of a “pollutant.”

Read These Next