To Avoid Paying $25M, Insurance Co. Claims Smoke Killing 3 in Fire Was "Pollution"

[Are_grits_groceries]

An insurance company with a potential $25 million liability from a 2007 Houston office fire is claiming smoke that killed three people was "pollution" and surviving families shouldn't be compensated for their losses since the deaths were not caused directly by the actual flames.

Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup — would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6168688.html

Oy vey!!

[underpants]

1. They didn't get so rich writing checks

remember the extended fight in court by insurance companies claiming that 9/11 was ONE event not two
and the horrific activities after Katrina

[SpiralHawk]

2. In almost all 'fire' deaths, the cause is smoke inhalation

This is just another sleazy RepubliconThink effort to avoid honesty and responsibility.

Republicon 'family values' have polluted the American soul.

Time for a massive American Soul Enema...to cleanse our nation of Wide-Stance, Diaper-Clad, Wallet-Stuffed Republicon Family Values.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Going for this exclusion exposes them as con and bunco artisits selling worthless policies

They should loose their insurance license and forfeit all assets and be fined 10 times what the payouts would have been with the fine awrded to the defrauded victims.

[babylonsister]

3. How ludicrous. nt

[TexasObserver]

5. Marginal insurers pull this kind of nonsense, particularly in bad economic times.

Insurers are major players in the world of investment, so when the economy takes a hit, they take a hit. Some of them resort to this kind of tactic. Asserting the "pollution exclusion" is not a new tactic for such insurers, but it's usually employed by them in commercial cases, not personal injury.

In this case, the primary insurer clearly saw that its one million dollar layer of primary coverage would be exhausted quickly, so they want to tender their million, and require the excess carrier to fund the balance of a settlement.

This is a tactic by the excess carrier to try to haggle the plaintiffs down to a lower number for settlement. The excess carrier is going to lose this argument, and given its lack of applicability, I will not be surprised if the federal judge slaps an assessment for attorneys fees on the excess carrier.

[Liberal In Texas]

6. With everything else that needs to be done, insurance regulation needs to be

looked at. Another example of the "free market" not working.

[surrealAmerican]

7. Oy, vey indeed.

I can't imagine that they could possibly win this case. As noted above MOST deaths from fires are caused by smoke inhalation. They are wasting the courts time, and should be charged for that as well. It's galling to see them spend the money to fight this in court that should be going to pay the policy holders.