The claimant alleged that the insurer's stuffer did not constitute adequate notice. The court disagreed. The claimant also lost her second argument for coverage because there were no allegations that the exposure to lead occurred prior to the inception of the exclusion. The allegations, instead, were based on exposure after the exclusion became effective. The court therefore concluded that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify the insured.
Lead poisoning is hazardous to the health of people.
And lead exclusions without a doubt can cause financial problems to property owners, considering defense costs today, not to speak about the potential for compensatory and punitive damages. Fortunately, the stuffers commonly issued by insurers save producers a lot of time and expense that would otherwise have to be expended in notifying their clients about this exclusion, when issued.