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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
