Broad Form Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion is not so broad in its application

“Broad Form” Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion Endorsement is not so broad in its application

As an attorney or insurance professional working in the insurance industry, you most likely have come across an endorsement in a standard CGL policy labeled “Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion Endorsement (Broad Form)”. While you may have scrolled through this endorsement, you probably have not had a case that required you to take a close look at its content. If you did, you would discover that this endorsement labeled “broad form” is not so broad in regards to what it excludes.

Based upon the label, you would think that this exclusion applied to any claims involving nuclear energy, nuclear explosion, radioactive material, radiation, or the like. However, if you read the endorsement closely, it is much more limited in its application. This endorsement actually only excludes a limited set of potential damages that are, or should be covered by a nuclear energy liability policy.

While the endorsement does bar coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” resulting from the “hazardous properties” of “nuclear material,” the nuclear material must be at a “nuclear facility” owned or operated by or on behalf of an “insured” or discharged therefrom. Additionally, the “nuclear material must be contained in “spent fuel” or waste” that has been possessed, handled, used, processed, stored, transported or disposed of by an insured. Thus, just because a claim involves “nuclear material” does not mean it’s excluded from coverage under this endorsement.

Therefore, if you happen to come across a claim involving radiation, radioactive material, etc., and you think – this must fall within that “nuclear liability exclusion” I have seen, you better take a closer look at the claim and the exclusion, as its application is not as broad as the title seems to imply.