- A small distributor of silicone sealer was named in a suit alleging that fumes from the sealer had entered the ventilation system of a major department store forcing the evacuation and two-day closing of the establishment. Damages of $210,000 were being sought. The distributor, relying on vendor’s coverage from the manufacturer, did not own a products pollution liability policy. After putting the manufacturer on notice, the distributor was dismayed to find that the manufacturer’s insurer denied coverage based on an absolute pollution exclusion that excluded any loss arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge of any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including chemicals. Based on the inadequacy of the manufacturer’s insurance, the vendor’s coverage was worthless and the distributor was left with an uninsured loss of $210,000.
- An industrial facility has their air pollution control equipment updated and a 3rd party contractor installs new scrubbers. Over the next week, neighbors of the facility complain of dizziness, nausea and several have to be hospitalized due to fumes found to be coming from the facility’s exhaust stacks. It is determined the scrubber was installed properly – the problem was the scrubber itself had been manufactured improperly. The scrubber manufacturer was sued and forced to pay over $500,000 in damages.
- A manufacturer of fuel tanks and piping was pulled into a law suit after a former client discovered a leak at one of the tanks they had installed. The leak was determined to come from the flexible piping, leading to several thousand gallons of fuel escaping over a period of three years. After months of defense and investigation, it was determined the fault lay with the installation contractor who failed to use enough epoxy at one of the joints. The manufacturers out of pocket defense expenses were well into six figures, all self insured as they had absolute pollution exclusion on their CGL policy.
- Insured manufactures barrels that are used for containing acids and chemical solvents. During the manufacturing process, there is a problem arising out of the welding of the seams. A chemical distributor uses these barrels to supply product to his customers. A customer advises that several of these barrels fail at their facility while being moved. The resulting chemicals are discharged on the customer’s premises and subsequently into the storm drains resulting in an expensive clean-up.
- A reconditioner of industrial drums was sued by a prior customer for contamination of the product the customer stored in the drums. The end user was putting hydraulic fluid in the reconditioned drums, and then delivering it to commercial job sites for on-site upkeep of heavy equipment. Rust on the inside of the drums contaminated he fluid, causing significant damage to the machinery it was used in. The GL carrier declined the insurance claim citing the absolute pollution exclusion on the policy.
- A manufacturer or fuel tank dispensers was brought into a claim when a customer who was fueling their car suffered bodily injury and property damage from overflowing gas. The nozzle did not shut off properly, and the overflowing gas caused damage to the vehicle as we as alleged bodily injury to the person. Additionally, they claimed damages arising from failure to continue their trip etc. The insurance claim was ultimately settled for a negligible amount, but legal expenses alone cost the manufacturer over $50,000.
While the coverages we offer are designed to address these general issues, we make no guarantee or warranty that any individual policy we offer will respond to all issues as described herein. Please refer to the actual policy wording in each offered form to determine coverage applicability and acceptability. In the event your client applies for coverage and we offer terms, please review those terms carefully to determine if all of your client’s exposures are being addressed. In some instances, more than one policy or type of coverage may be necessary.