Total Pollution Exclusion versus Standard Pollution Exclusion, exclusion f.

The Florida Supreme court has found the “total pollution exclusion” to be unambiguous and has refused to limit the term “pollutant” in in a manner employed by environmental engineers or the scientific community, to exclude only environmental or industrial pollution. Deni Associates of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty, Ins. Co., 711 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1998). In Deni, the Court noted that it will not place limitations on the plain language of the policy which excludes coverage for all pollution related liability.

Therefore, if a policy contains a “total pollution exclusion”, the exclusion will broadly apply to bar coverage for any claim for injury that would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants” at any time.”

However, many CGL policies do not contain a “total pollution” exclusion. Rather, they contain only the standard CGL pollution exclusion, exclusion f. Pollution.

Exclusion f. is more limited than the total pollution exclusion. For example, in one portion it states that it will exclude coverage for “property damage” arising out of the . . .actual . . discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants” “_*at or from any premise, site or location, which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or rented or loaned to, any insured*_.”

Thus, under the standard pollution exclusion the carrier not only has to evaluate whether the substance at issue constitutes a “pollutant,”, it also has to evaluate whether the “property damage” arises out of the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants at or from any premise, site or location, which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or rented or loaned to, any insured (or it has to evaluate whether the claim falls within one of the other limitations contained in the standard exclusion).