# American States Insurance v. Koloms

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 17, 1997 · 177 Ill. 2d 473

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862222

## Case

- **Full name:** AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. HARVEY KOLOMS Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 17, 1997
- **Citations:** 177 Ill. 2d 473; 227 Ill. Dec. 149; 687 N.E.2d 72; 1997 Ill. LEXIS 448
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Heiple
- **Judges:** McMorrow, Heiple
- **Cited by:** 357 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862222

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, to determine whether an insurer is obligated to defend its insured, “a court looks to the allegations in the underlying complaint and compares those allegations to the relevant provisions of the insurance policy”
- recognizing that language of pollution exclusion clause is “quite specific on its face, and yet a literal interpretation of that language results in an application of the clause which is quite broad” (quotations omitted)
- finding that an accidental leak of carbon monoxide from a faulty furnace that was contained within the insured’s building did not “constitute the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the clause”
- concluding that pollution exclusion was limited to traditional environmental pollutants based on drafting history and retention of environmental terms of art and did not apply to carbon monoxide
- noting that language excluding “ ‘Bodily injury’ ... arising out of actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants [a]t or from premises you own, rent or occupy’ ” is commonly known as the “absolute pollution exclusion”

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting:
This case turns on the interpretation of an exclusion clause in a policy of insurance. The facts are simple. Plaintiffs alleged injury from carbon monoxide fumes escaping from a malfunctioning furnace. The insurance company denied coverage on the basis of policy language which excluded coverage for injury from the escape of pollutants. The language further defined pollutants as any gaseous irritant or contaminant including fumes.
Choosing to override the clear language of the insurance contract, however, the majority purports to divine the unstated intent of the parties. With this analysis, coverage is found to be provided. What we have here is not a case of contract construction. It is, rather, a case of contract reconstruction. As such, it is thimblerigging pure and simple. It also indicates the depths to which a court will go to achieve a desired result. If any principle can be derived from this ruling, it is that words have no meaning.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862222. Public record. Not legal advice.