Gasoline Leaking into a Natural Spring is Excluded Pollution
Post 4842
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gebS35Sg, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSN4EZuM and at https://lnkd.in/gtr2XKCJ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
In Erie Insurance Exchange v. SHRI BRAMANI, LLC; ERIC MOBERLY; KAP LEASING, INC.; KEVIN MOBERLY; MOBERLY BROTHERS PROPERTIES, LLC; AND PRADIPKUMAR PATEL, No. 2023-CA-0169-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (July 19, 2024) the Court of Appeals was asked to reverse a trial court that the insurer’s pollution exclusion did not exclude coverage for the negligent leakage of gasoline from one of the insured’s underground fuel storage tanks onto the neighboring real property owned by Appellees.
BACKGROUND
The Policy
Erie issued a commercial general liability policy of insurance which covered the premises and the operation of the convenience store and gas station on Lane Allen Road. The policy was in force until June 12, 2020. The policy generally provided coverage for legal liability to third parties arising out of bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury. As with most policies of insurance, the policy contains several exclusionary clauses including an exclusion of coverage for injuries or damages caused by “pollution.”
The Gas Leak
On or about October 17, 2019, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (“KDWM”) received a telephonic complaint of petroleum odors around the Lane Allen Food Mart. A KDWM official was sent to investigate and noted what appeared to be petroleum leeching through a groundwater spring. Further investigation and testing indicated that the petroleum was coming from one of the Lane Allen Food Mart’s underground petroleum storage tanks.
Lane Allen Food Mart entered into an Agreed Order with the Energy and Environment Cabinet admitting that it had violated Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) Chapter 224, and the statute’s accompanying regulations, as related to its underground petroleum storage tanks. Pursuant to the Agreed Order, Lane Allen Food Mart consented to an assessed penalty of ten thousand dollars for the agreed-upon violations.
Post-Leak Events
Following discovery of the fuel leak, Moberly Brothers made a claim against Lane Allen Food Mart. Moberly Brothers alleged that the fuel leak caused it to suffer economic harm as a result of widespread, permanent environmental contamination. Specifically, Moberly Brothers asserted that the leaked fuel entered and contaminated a natural water spring located on its property, which rendered the property unfit for the bottled water facility that was planned for the property. Erie denied the claim based on the pollution exclusion contained in the policy. Erie agreed to defend the claim against the Lane Allen Food Mart under a reservation of rights. Subsequently, Erie filed a separate action against its insureds and Moberly Brothers.
ANALYSIS
Kentucky Courts have always strongly adhered to a policy of protecting the reasonable expectations of policyholders. Although insurance carriers have the right to impose reasonable limitations on their coverage, the question then becomes the reasonableness of the condition as a limitation on public policy as opposed to one of strict contract considerations between private parties where no public interest is involved.
Most consumers would recognize that gasoline is a product that becomes a pollutant when it leaks into the ground and contaminates soil and water. Even a valuable and useful product like gasoline can become a pollutant when it contaminates a natural resource.
The focus of the inquiry under the absolute pollution exclusion is not on the nature of the substance alone, but on the substance in relation to the property damage or bodily injury.
Nature of the Alleged Damage.
Where the purported pollutant results in “contamination, negative health or environmental effects,” the exclusion is enforceable. Moberly Brothers alleges significant environmental damage to its real property due to the gasoline that leaked from the Lane Allen Food Mart’s underground storage tank. Moberly Brothers alleged in its complaint that the petroleum gasoline damaged and contaminated its property and seeks damages to restore and recover the use and value of the property. This is precisely the type of pollution-related damage that falls within the scope of the exclusion.
Gasoline is clearly a pollutant when it leaks from an underground storage tank and enters a neighbor’s land and contaminates the water and soil thereon. Because the pollution-exclusion clause is unambiguous, the property damages suffered by Moberly Brothers are not covered by Erie’s policy of insurance, and the trial court therefore erred in entering a judgment against Erie. The judgment was reversed and remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment in Erie’s favor.
ZALMA OPINION
No insurance policy covers every potential risk of loss. Almost every liability policy has a pollution exclusion. Since gasoline, escaping into the land, is obviously a pollutant and the insured admitted to the pollution, the exclusion applied and the insurer neither owed defense or indemnity to the insureds.
(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/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
