In Georgia Stormwater is a Pollutant
Stormwater Alone—Even Uncontaminated—Constitutes a Pollutant
Post 5186
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gtM4Gii7, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g6YyqeFN and at https://lnkd.in/gksd5iTd and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Tabby Place Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-346, United States District Court, S.D. Georgia (September 3, 2025) found no coverage.
The decision of the USDC presents a detailed judicial opinion on a declaratory judgment action involving Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Tabby Place Homeowners Association (HOA), and various property owners. The central issue concerned whether Auto-Owners had a duty to defend or indemnify the HOA in an underlying lawsuit brought by property owners alleging property damage from stormwater flooding linked to the HOA’s stormwater retention ponds.
BACKGROUND AND PARTIES INVOLVED
The underlying litigation involved property owners adjacent to the Tabby Place and Captain’s Cove Subdivisions on St. Simons Island, Georgia, alleging that the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater retention ponds caused flooding and damage to their properties. The HOA acquired ownership of the retention ponds in September 2020, after the property owners filed their initial lawsuit in 2019. Auto-Owners issued two insurance policies to the HOA in April 2019: a Commercial General Liability (CGL) Policy and a Commercial Umbrella Policy, which are at issue in this declaratory judgment action. Auto-Owners sought a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the HOA based on policy exclusions, primarily the pollution exclusions, while the HOA and property owners contest this position.
INSURANCE POLICIES AND COVERAGE DISPUTE
The CGL Policy and Umbrella Policy provide coverage for property damage and personal injury but contain exclusions, including pollution exclusions. Both policies exclude coverage for property damage arising from the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of “pollutants.” The policies define “pollutant” broadly as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,” including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.
Auto-Owners contended that the stormwater flooding alleged in the underlying lawsuit qualifies as damage caused by pollutants under the pollution exclusions, thereby barring coverage. Auto-Owners also argued that the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered only if the claims potentially fall within coverage, and here the pollution exclusions unambiguously apply.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: WHETHER STORMWATER CONSTITUTES A POLLUTANT
The primary legal question is whether stormwater, including stormwater infiltrating into groundwater, qualifies as a “pollutant” under the policies’ pollution exclusions. The court reviewed relevant Georgia law and precedent, noting that courts have consistently held that stormwater alone—even uncontaminated—constitutes a pollutant under similar insurance exclusions. The court rejected arguments that stormwater must be contaminated to qualify as a pollutant or that rising groundwater is excluded from the pollution exclusion.
The court further found no meaningful distinction between direct stormwater runoff and stormwater that infiltrates through the ground and raises groundwater levels, as both scenarios involve the discharge or migration of stormwater, which is a pollutant under the policies. The court cited multiple precedents from Georgia federal courts supporting this interpretation.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Three motions for summary judgment were before the court. The court applied the standard that summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
COURT’S HOLDING AND CONCLUSION
The court concluded that the pollution exclusions unambiguously barred coverage for the property damage claims alleged in the underlying action because the damage arises from the discharge and migration of stormwater, which is a pollutant under Georgia law and the policy definitions. As a result, Auto-Owners had no duty to defend or indemnify the HOA for the claims in the underlying lawsuit
This ruling clarified the application of pollution exclusions in insurance policies to stormwater-related property damage claims under Georgia law, affirming that stormwater is considered a pollutant regardless of contamination or mode of discharge.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a contract. It defines the terms where it will respond with indemnity and the terms where it will not respond. In Georgia stormwater – even when it is not contaminated – is still a pollutant and therefore the insurer neither owed defense nor indemnity to its insured.
(c) 2025 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
Go to X @bzalma; 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 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 ...
