Publications

(Article from Insurance Law Alert, May 2015)

For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.

Addressing an issue of first impression under Georgia law, a Georgia appellate court ruled that a pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for injuries arising out of the ingestion or inhalation of lead-based paint. Smith v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1432625 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

Georgia Farm Bureau filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify claims alleging lead paint-related injuries. A Georgia trial court granted the insurer’s summary judgment motion, finding that the pollution exclusion barred coverage. An appellate court reversed on the basis that the term "pollutant" was ambiguous as to whether it encompassed lead or lead-based paint. The court noted the conflict among other jurisdictions regarding application of a pollution exclusion to lead paint claims, but concluded that the exclusion should be construed narrowly in favor of the insured. Notably, the court distinguished Georgia precedent holding that a similarly-worded pollution exclusion barred coverage for carbon monoxide-related injuries.