Pollutant Damage Caused by Specific Perils Not Excluded

Our insured sustained a loss due to a puff back from their gas-fired furnace. The carrier denied coverage under the pollution exclusion of the CP 10 30 10 00. The carrier said that the resulting soot damage was neither smoke nor explosion, both of which qualify for the pollution exclusion's specified perils exception. The adjuster also said that soot was a pollutant and not covered. We disagree. What are your thoughts?

Pennsylvania Subscriber

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis