Opinion ID: 769015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The CK Policy Endorsement

Text: 22 The District next contends the district court erred in holding that the absolute pollution exclusion contained in the Endorsement to Policy CK overrides that policy's standard pollution exclusion clause. Whereas the body of Policy CK contains an exception to its general pollution exclusion for sudden accidents involving pollutants, the absolute pollution exclusion clause in the Endorsement contains no such exception restoring coverage. See Appellant's App. at 111, 121. 23 The general rule provides that when a conflict in an insurance contract arises between provisions contained in the body of the policy and provisions contained in an endorsement to that policy, the endorsement provisions prevail. Simon v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co., 842 P.2d 236, 241 (Colo. 1992). Simon recognized an exception to that general rule, however, holding that conflicting provisions should be construed against the insurer in cases where the endorsement contains no separate signatures, and there is no other evidence or allegation that the endorsement had been separately negotiated. See id. at 241-47. The District contends the Simon conditions exist here and that the absolute pollution exclusion provision in the Endorsement conflicts with the pollution exclusion clause in the body of the policy. 24 We agree with the district court's conclusion that Simon does not apply to this case because the Endorsement does not conflict with the policy. Unlike the endorsement at issue in Simon, the Endorsement to Policy CK expressly states that it replaces the [p]ollution exclusion within the body of the policy. Appellant's App. at 121 (emphasis added). In addition to this clear and unambiguous explanation that the Endorsement is a replacement of the pollution exclusion clause, the introduction page to Policy CK clearly states that the policy may include one or more endorsements, and explains that [e]ndorsements are documents that change [the District's] policy. Id. at 100. Because the Endorsement reconciled its absolute pollution exclusion provision with the body of Policy CK by making clear it was a replacement to the pollution exclusion provision in the policy, there is no inherent conflict, as there was in Simon. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that St. Paul does not have a duty to defend the District under Policy CK. 25