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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
