Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Common sense tells us that lead paint that never leaves a wall or ceili 79, 615 N.Y.S.2d 993 (1st Dep’t 1994); St. Leger v. American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 870 F.Supp. 641 (E.D.Pa.1994) (same), aff'd without opinion, 61 F.3d 896 (3d Cir.1995); Kaytes v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., No. Civ. A. 93-1573, 1994 WL 780901 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 6, 1994) (same). On that interpretation, it might be permissible for Chubb to refuse to A.2d 617, 622-23 (1995) (same); Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. McFadden, 413 Mass. 90, 595 N.E.2d 762, 764 (1992) (same). Because the poisoning occurred inside an apartment, the lead paint might not be regarded as an environmental pollutant and therefore coverage would not be excluded. See United States Liability Ins. Co. v. Bourbeau, 49 F.3d 786, 789 (1st Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The clause at issue here bars coverage for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a discharge into the environment is necessary for the total pollution clause to be applicable (B) holding that removal of insulation that released asbestos  a thermal irritant  into an apartment was covered by the pollution exclusion (C) holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered (D) holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion (E) holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims
Output (English): holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims