No Insurance Policy Covers Every Risk of Loss
Barry Zalma
Mar 22, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbZU78W9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gk-N8X-p and at https://lnkd.in/gTGqXwY2 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4760
Pollution Exclusions Deter Polluters
In the world of business, corporations obtain commercial insurance to protect their assets, and commercial insurers customarily include exclusion provisions in their policies. Exclusion provisions dispel the notion that insurance coverage is without limits and place the insured on notice about actions or omissions that will trigger an insurer’s denial of coverage. Insurance policies that include pollution exclusion provisions accomplish even more.
In Gold Coast Commodities, Incorporated v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 23-60087, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 18, 2024) the Fifth Circuit established the reason for a pollution exclusion.
An insurance policy’s pollution exclusion deters deliberate or negligent behavior that leads to environmental harm. When a court affirms a pollution exclusion the insured is prevented from coverage, the Fifth Circuit protect the insurer’s right to disincentivize corporations from engaging in bad faith actions with a known environmental impact. This case arises from claims asserted against an insured and, due to a pollution exclusion, those claims fall outside the insurance policy’s reach.
BACKGROUND
Gold Coast Commodities, Inc. (“Gold Coast”) is a business corporation located in Rankin County, Mississippi. Gold Coast converts used cooking oil and vegetable by-products into animal feed ingredients. Gold Coast became insured under Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”), Policy.
In July 2018, the City of Brandon filed suit in the Circuit Court of Rankin County against Gold Coast and its principals alleging that Gold Coast dumped “significant amounts of high-temperature, corrosive, low-pH wastewater into the City’s sewer system.” These actions or omissions are alleged to have occurred during the Policy period. The City of Brandon seeks to recover for damages from negligence resulting from the “discharge” or “release” of “pollutants” as the term “pollutants” is defined in the Policy.
In June 2021, adding to Gold Coast’s problems the City of Jackson filed suit in the Circuit Court of Hinds County against Gold Coast and its principals alleging that Gold Coast dumped “high temperature and corrosive” industrial waste into the City’s sewer system.
Travelers denied coverage for defense or indemnity of the two suits and Travelers cited the Policy’s pollution exclusion as the basis for its denial of coverage.
Travelers filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that it had no duty to defend Gold Coast and its principals in the respective lawsuits and Gold Coast filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings arguing that: (1) Travelers has the duty to defend Gold Coast and its principals in the respective lawsuits; and (2) Travelers has a duty to reimburse Gold Coast and its principals for their defense costs.
The district court denied Gold Coast’s Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and granted Travelers’ Motion for Partial Summary.
DISCUSSION
An insurance company’s duty to defend its insured is triggered when it becomes aware that a complaint has been filed which contains reasonable, plausible allegations of conduct covered by the policy. No duty to defend arises when the claims fall outside the policy’s coverage. Exclusionary clauses are strictly interpreted and the language within them must be clear and unmistakable.
The district court concluded that all the claims in the complaints were clearly and unambiguously excluded from coverage based on the Policy’s pollution exclusion.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that the language unambiguously excluded Gold Coast’s actions.
A substance is an irritant or contaminant at its core when no matter where it is, how it is contained, or whether it is in contact with something it is an irritant or contaminant. A substance can become an irritant or contaminant when it comes into contact with something and is actively irritating or contaminating it.
“The allegations in both the City of Brandon’s and the City of Jackson’s complaints present facts that are paradigmatic for the application of the Policy pollution exclusion.”
The deliberate discharge of toxic industrial waste is precisely the type of activity to which Traveler’s Policy pollution exclusion was intended to apply. There is not a reasonable interpretation of the wastewater’s form or qualities that would conclude that it was not an irritant or contaminant. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Policy is not ambiguous. Because the Policy is not ambiguous, the claims are excluded from coverage.
Gold Coast, therefore, did not sufficiently plead facts that trigger Traveler’s duty to defend and the District Court’s decision was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The Fifth Circuit established one of the important reasons for exclusions in insurance policies like that issued to Gold Coast by the Travelers. Exclusion provisions are present to reveal to insureds that insurance coverage is limited and place the insured on notice about actions or omissions that will trigger an insurer’s denial of coverage. Insurance policies that include pollution exclusion provisions accomplish even more because they deter wrongful conduct. Gold Coast learned that lesson the hard way: it must pay for defense of the lawsuits and pay from its assets the tort damages.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
