Carbon Monoxide Poisoning and the Question of One Occurrence Versus More Than One

 

March 18, 2014

 

Petitioners appealed a ruling by a county circuit court pertaining to claims for injuries suffered due to carbon monoxide poisoning. This case is Kosnoski v. Rogers, 2014 WL 629343.

 

Petitioners lived in apartments in West Virginia. On September 4 and 5, 2011, the petitioners suffered serious injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning, and Justin Kosnoski died from the exposure. The petitioners filed a lawsuit against the property owner (Rogers), the manager of the complex, and the insurer of the complex (Erie Insurance Property and Casualty). The complaint requested a finding that the petitioners are each entitled to a separate occurrence limit from the policy and that the damages sustained are separate occurrences for each of the petitioners.

 

The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment and the circuit court granted it, ruling that the emission of carbon monoxide from the gas boiler furnace was a single event. This appeal followed.

 

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia noted that the petitioners asserted assignments of error on appeal. The contention was that the circuit court erred in granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment because the undisputed evidence was that the subject exposures and injuries were separated by time, place, and severity and consequently, should have been considered separate occurrences.

 

The petitioners argued that if the time or the place of events is different and there is a difference in the detailed cause of each injury or damage, there is more than one occurrence for insurance coverage purposes. They said that because the petitioners and the decedent were exposed to carbon monoxide at different times during the night of September 4 and the early morning hours of September 5, and because they were exposed to varying levels of carbon monoxide, there was more than one occurrence.

 

The court decided that it was clear from the record that there was a leak of carbon monoxide from a single source, the gas boiler. While the gas undoubtedly traveled to different rooms within the building at different times over several hours, the injuries to the petitioners and the decedent were from continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. The court found that this met with the policy definition of “occurrence” and so, under the facts presented in this case, there was a single occurrence under the policy at issue.

 

The ruling of the circuit court was affirmed.

 

Editor's Note: The insurer in this case argued that there was one cause of the injuries alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that since there were injuries to families occupying separate apartments, the injuries took place over time, and that each apartment was exposed to different levels of carbon monoxide, there was more than one occurrence. The court sided with the insurer as to the one cause, but also added that the definition of occurrence in the policy as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions” unambiguously described the events in this incident.