Georgia Supreme Court Rules That Lead-Based Paint Is a “Pollutant”

April 14, 2016 | Insurance Coverage

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that personal injury claims allegedly arising from lead poisoning due to lead-based paint ingestion were excluded from coverage pursuant to an absolute pollution exclusion in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy covering residential rental property.

The Case

A landlord was sued for injuries the plaintiff’s daughter allegedly sustained as a result of ingesting lead from deteriorating lead-based paint at the house the plaintiff rented from the landlord. After the landlord tendered the claim to his insurance carrier, the insurer went to court for a declaration that it had no duty to defend the landlord against the underlying plaintiff’s claims.

The trial court concluded that lead-based paint unambiguously fell within the policy’s definition of a “pollutant,” and it granted summary judgment to the insurer. The court of appeals reversed, and the dispute reached the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s Decision

The court reversed.

In its decision, the court explained that Georgia courts have repeatedly applied absolute pollution exclusions “outside the context of traditional environmental pollution.” Moreover, Georgia courts have enforced absolute pollution exclusion clauses without requiring that the specific pollutant be explicitly named in the policy.

The court then ruled that, under the broad definition of pollutant contained in the policy, the lead present in paint “unambiguously” qualified as a pollutant.  The court held that plaintiff’s claim was excluded under the “plain language of the policy’s pollution exclusion clause.”

The case is Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Smith, No. S15G1177 (Ga. March 21, 2016).

Share this article:
  • Robert Tugander





Related Publications


Get legal updates and news delivered to your inbox