We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 18

Oklahoma court addresses time element pollution exclusion

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 3 2013

In its recent decision in Colony Insurance Company v. Bear Products, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43716 (E.D. Okl. Mar. 26, 2013), the United States

Missouri Federal Court holds pollution exclusion inapplicable to exposure to fumes

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2013

In its recent decision in United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Titan Contractors Service, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10716 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013), the

Kentucky court holds pollution exclusion applicable to release of diesel fuel

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2013

In its recent decision in Hardy Oil Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4760 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 11, 2013), the United States

Alabama Supreme Court holds PRP letter triggers duty to defend

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 3 2013

In its recent decision in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., 2012 Ala. LEXIS 174 (Ala. Dec. 28, 2012), the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed

Missouri Federal Court affirms denial of coverage based on pollution exclusion

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 5 2012

In its recent decision in Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140981 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2012), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri had occasion to consider whether the total pollution exclusion is ambiguous for failure to define the term “pollutants,” or for failure to include this term to include specific constituents

Pennsylvania court holds pollution exclusion applies to pig farm odor claim

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 3 2012

In its recent decision in Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Chubb Custom Insurance Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44756 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2012), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, had occasion to consider whether noxious odor emanating from a pig farm constituted a pollutant for the purpose of a total pollution exclusion

7th Circuit addresses the nature and purpose of the pollution exclusion

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2012

Scottsdale Indem. Co. v. Village of Crestwood, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5069 (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, had occasion to consider the nature and purpose of the total pollution exclusion

Second Circuit agrees that pollution exclusion does not apply to restaurant odors

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 8 2011

In 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued its decision in Barney Greengrass, Inc. v. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76781 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2010), a case addressing whether the pollution exclusion applied to restaurant odors

California court holds non-owned site disposal exclusion is ambiguous

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2011

In its recent decision Sierra Recycling & Demolition v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127354 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the scope a non-owned site disposal exclusion, a form of exclusion commonly found in pollution liability insurance policies

11th Circuit holds millings from roadwork fall within pollution exclusion

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2011

In its seminal decision Deni Associates of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 711 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1998), the Florida Supreme Court held that the terms “irritants” and “contaminants” as used in an absolute pollution exclusion, are not ambiguous, and that the exclusion is not restricted to matters traditionally thought of as industrial or environmental pollution