Christopher Meeks · April 2009
77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 824 (2009)
This Note proposes a uniform method for interpreting the term pollution to address the problems associated with an unclear definition of pollution in the absolute pollution exclusion. Specifically, this Note argues that state courts should first find that the term pollution is ambiguous, and should then apply a three-factor analysis to determine whether an alleged pollutant is a pollutant under the exclusion. By applying this uniform interpretation to define the term pollution, state courts will decrease the expectation gap between insureds and insurance providers.
This Note begins by examining the history of the absolute pollution exclusion. Part II of this Note then highlights various state court interpretations of pollution in the absolute pollution exclusion. Part III proposes a uniform method for interpreting the term “pollution” in pollution exclusions and applies it to various facts to demonstrate the application of this method. Finally, Part IV addresses why this proposed interpretation is better than the alternatives.
