As temperatures in the Northeast have made it feel more like winter than spring, it’s only fitting that we begin our April Insurance Update with a case from Alaska. There, the Alaska Supreme Court decides for the first time whether a claim involving carbon monoxide poisoning is barred by the pollution exclusion. The court acknowledged that the exclusion is broad, and that carbon monoxide qualifies as a “pollutant,” but did the insured’s reasonable expectations override this literal interpretation?
A Georgia federal court takes on a similar issue: whether the pollution exclusion bars a Freon exposure claim? The insured argued that applying the exclusion when Freon was its main product would defy its reasonable expectations. But are the insured’s reasonable expectations relevant when the policy is unambiguous?
Last October, a federal district court in Florida found that a subset of Publix’s insurers did not have to defend the supermarket chain in opioid litigation. That court recently found itself in the unusual position of granting Publix’s request for judgment in favor of its remaining insurers. Publix, of course, is seeking final judgment to expedite its appeal.
A Missouri state court also dismissed a claim for coverage by a trust on behalf of an opioid manufacturer. But the court’s ruling hinged on the products-completed operations hazard exclusion and the meaning of the phrase “arising out of.”
At the federal appellate level, the Fifth Circuit considers whether Texas common law and statutory bad faith claims are available when an insurer already paid the appraisal award and any applicable interest under a homeowners policy. Meanwhile, the Eighth Circuit interprets an ensuing loss clause and whether that clause restores coverage for a painting subcontractor’s faulty work.
And we conclude with a Delaware state court decision on how to divvy up losses for products liability claims over Mattel’s Rock’ n Play sleeper.
We hope you enjoy the update.
Please see full publication below for more information.
