concluding that “a majority of jurisdictions limit the [pollution] exclusion to situations involving traditional environmental pollution,” although it is a slim majority (citing cases)
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “a majority of jurisdictions limit the [pollution] exclusion to situations involving traditional environmental pollution,” although it is a slim majority (citing cases)
- explaining that absolute-pollution exclusions “eliminated” an exception for “sudden and accidental” pollution discharge found in earlier qualified pollution exclusions
- holding carbon monoxide is “pollutant” within plain language of pollution exclusion
- stating that Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1992) applies the majority rule
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I believe the district court was correct when it concluded that, on these facts, the pollution exclusion does not bar recovery.