Georgia Supreme Court Rules That Pollution Exclusion Applies to Lead Paint Claims
04.29.16
This is only gets display when printing
(Article from Insurance Law Alert, April 2016)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Addressing an issue of first impression under Georgia law, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a pollution exclusion bars coverage for injuries arising out of the ingestion or inhalation of lead-based paint. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2016 WL 1085397 (Ga. Mar. 21, 2016).
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, noting the conflict among jurisdictions on this issue and concluding that the term “pollutant” was ambiguous as to whether it encompassed lead or lead-based paint.
Smith v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1432625 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015) (discussed in our
May 2015 Alert). The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, ruling that lead paint is a pollutant under the policy. The court explained that Georgia law does not limit pollution exclusions to traditional environmental pollution and that pollution exclusions are enforced “without requiring that the pollutant at issue be explicitly named in the policy.”