holding that when a policy does not use language such as “atmosphere” or “watercourse” that only refers to the natural environment, the exclusion encompasses pollution of the air within a building
How later courts described this case
- holding that when a policy does not use language such as “atmosphere” or “watercourse” that only refers to the natural environment, the exclusion encompasses pollution of the air within a building
- holding pollution exclusion that did not limit its terms to atmospheric pollution applied to claim arising from release of asbestos fibers in enclosed environment
- concluding that asbestos unambiguously falls within the exclusion’s language about “other irritants, contaminants, or pollutants”
- concluding that the exclusion provision applied to asbestos even though asbestos was not specifically mentioned in the provision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TOMLJANOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur with the dissent of Justice Gar-debring.