In Travelers Indemnity Company v. MTS Transport, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127847 (W.D. Pa.), the Court was confronted with a situation where a tanker truck spilled petroleum asphalt on a highway, damaging the highway and multiple vehicles. The tanker truck owner, MTS, tendered a claim for defense and indemnity against its excess insurer, Hallmark.
Hallmark denied coverage, noting that the excess policy at issue had an "absolute" pollution exclusion, which provided that there would be no coverage from any "injury, damage, expense, cost, loss, liability or legal obligation arising out of or any way related to pollution, however caused." The case turned on whether the policy's reference to "pollution" should be deemed to include petroleum asphalt.
After finding that Maryland law should apply to the case, the District Court concluded that the policy exclusion's reference to "pollution" was vague when considered in the context of petroleum asphalt. The Court noted, among other things, that petroleum asphalt is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA and that the exclusion was arguably designed to apply only to "traditional environmental pollution". In any event, the Court concluded that the exact meaning of the reference to "pollution" was vague and that such vagueness entitled the policy holder to the benefit of the doubt in construing the meaning of the policy.
Whether the Court's conclusion would be accepted by other Courts remains a question.Nonetheless, depending on the type of substance/waste at issue on a claim, the case provides some authority for the proposition that even an "absolute" pollution exclusion will not always bar coverage.
Another classic example of loopholes of the law.In spite of the evident hazard or danger it caused, the culprit remained free because of the vagueness of a term.We need a very rigid and articulated laws for our environment.
Posted by: Caloundra Bookkeepers | March 14, 2013 at 08:33 PM
The Court must be responsible in weighing the coverage if it is undeniable or they have to be in-charge of this.
Posted by: how to find mr. right | February 18, 2013 at 06:08 AM
The event was over quickly, and I went back to my reading
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | December 14, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Way to go John! I too am perplexed at how all the poactiiilns are afraid to even mention Bio-fuel when discussing alternative energies. I will differ with one point in your disertation. I do believe that bio-fuels can the complete solution to our energy, food and economic problems. This can be achieved by creating very large economic and agfricultural zones specifically in South Texas and california for starters. This could be achieved by bringing huge amounts of water filtered from the ocean to these zones. This could also be a source of a continual source of revenue to our government while protecting our water supply from greedy and unscrupulous corporations that are trying to position themselves to control the supply. We could pre sign up customers which would make it easy to justify economically. Once the water lines are in place we culd then grow our way out of our fuel worries while creating thousands of good jobs and bringing our food supply back home. We could subsidize any one who owned any land down to a couple of acres for growing crops for ethanol production. This would greatly encourage private enterprises and allow people to use their land to make a living. This is all being demonstrated to us by our neighbors to the south (Brazil).
Posted by: Akash | October 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM