Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp.
774 So. 2d 119 | Supreme Court of Louisiana | 2000
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A Louisiana court ruled that pollution exclusions in commercial general liability insurance only protect insurers from claims by companies actively causing pollution, not from claims by people merely exposed to pollutants released by someone else. In this case, residents harmed by contaminated water couldn't be denied coverage just because the water system was incidentally exposed to a refinery's discharge. This matters to subcontractors because it means your insurance may still cover you if you're harmed by third-party pollution, even if your policy has a pollution exclusion clause.
Key Takeaways
- •Pollution exclusions in your CGL policy protect insurers only against active polluters, not passive exposure to third-party contamination
- •If you're incidentally exposed to pollutants released by someone else's operations, your insurer cannot automatically deny your claim using a blanket pollution exclusion
- •Review your insurance policy language carefully—broad pollution exclusions may be narrower than you think under Louisiana law
Pollution exclusion was designed to exclude coverage for environmental pollution only.
Frequently Asked Question
If my crew gets sick from pollution caused by another company, can my insurance company deny the claim using a pollution exclusion?
Not necessarily. Louisiana courts say pollution exclusions only apply to companies actively causing the pollution, not to workers or businesses merely exposed to it. If the pollution came from a third party and your crew was incidentally exposed, your insurer likely cannot use a blanket pollution exclusion to deny your claim.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.