July 2026 Insurance Update

If you had the pollution exclusion on your betting card, then you hit the trifecta this month. Our first three cases in this month’s update involve pollutants.

The term “pollutant” is broadly defined in most policies, but still, courts sometimes wrestle with what qualifies as a pollutant.

A CGL policy included “carbon monoxide and other exhaust gases” as an example of a pollutant. Was that enough to persuade a California federal court that an insurer did not have to defend a mechanic’s carbon monoxide poisoning suit?

A contractor got dust all over the insureds’ home. The insureds filed a claim with their homeowners insurer, but the policy did not cover damage caused by pollutants.  Dust was not listed in the definition of “pollutant.” Did that persuade a Pennsylvania federal judge to find coverage?

Indiana narrowly construes pollution exclusions. If the substance is not expressly listed in the pollutant definition, it’s generally not excluded. Did the Indiana Court of Appeals resort to this approach when considering whether a methanol poisoning claim was excluded?

And rounding out the field—for our superfecta bettors—is an Illinois false advertising claim.

We hope you enjoy the update.