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

The pollution exclusion in CP 10 30 10 00 states : “We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following:…Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of 'pollutants' unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the 'specified causes of loss'.” A “pollutant” is defined on the Building and Personal Property Coverage form as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or containment, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” And, “specified causes of loss” include fire, smoke, and explosion.

While it is true that the soot is a pollutant as defined by the policy and is not included in the listing of specified perils, if it was in fact caused by a specified peril, soot damage would not be excluded by the pollution exclusion.

And, with a gas-fired furnace, the likelihood is that either fire or explosion was the cause of the puff back. If this was the case, the pollution exclusion would not apply.