The Policy Language Of Clipper Mill Fed

1016 Words5 Pages
Accordingly, since Clendenin Bros., the policy language has been broadened—seemingly in response to Clendenin Bros. and similar cases—to include not only environmental pollution, but also, substances that are “harmful or toxic to persons [or] property.” The significance of this distinction was recognized in Clipper Mill Fed., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112172 (D.Md. 2010), where a landlord/insured alleged that damages caused by “[t]oxic and dangerous airborne pollutants” attributable to a malfunctioning HVAC unit gave rise to a claim against the insured by a tenant. Id. at 3. In that case, although the pollution at issue was not “environmental,” the District of Maryland observed that: The policy in the present case contains an important distinction from that involved in Clendenin Bros. The CGL Policy tracks the definition of “Pollutant” contained in the policy at issue in Clendenin Bros., but adds, “‘Pollutants’ include but are not limited to substances which are generally recognized in industry or government to be harmful or toxic to persons, property or the environment. . . .” Compare Clendenin Bros., 889 A.2d at 390, with CGL Policy, Form GA 1011204 § V(18) (emphasis added). The addition of this sentence expanded the definition of Pollutant beyond environmental pollutants. The CGL Policy’s use of the phrase “harmful or toxic to persons, property or the environment” shows that the definition includes irritants and contaminants that harm persons but

More about The Policy Language Of Clipper Mill Fed

Open Document