Opinion ID: 848627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: is sewage a pollutant under the insurance policy's pollution exclusion clause?

Text: The insurance policy at issue provides: Section V General Exclusions In addition to the specific exclusions in SECTION ICOVERAGES A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY, BPERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY, CMEDICAL PAYMENTS, DPUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, AND EAUTO, this coverage also does not apply to:    d. Bodily Injury or Property Damage arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants:    Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. [Emphasis added.] As this Court has previously held, The principles of construction governing other contracts apply to insurance policies. [12] As such, the foremost duty of a court in construing an insurance policy is to determine the intent of the contracting parties. [13] In doing so, a court must always begin with the actual language used by the parties in the insurance policy itself. [14] If the text of the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, the contract must be enforced as written. [15] [A]n unambiguous contractual provision is reflective of the parties' intent as a matter of law. [16] It is difficult to imagine an insurance policy that is clearer or more explicit than the one found in the present case. The pollution exclusion clause defines pollutant as any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant. . . . The word contaminant, given its plain and ordinary meaning, [17] is something that contaminates, and contaminate is defined as to make impure or unsuitable by contact or mixture with something unclean, bad, etc.; pollute; taint. . . . [18] It is undeniable that Fox Creek was made impure and tainted by the sewage that the city released. The record indicates that the sewage contained dirt, debris, garbage, condoms, feminine hygiene products, urine, feces, dishwater, toilet paper, cleaning fluids, and compounds containing E.coli. Therefore, because these solid and liquid materials are contaminants, the sewage the city released is necessarily a pollutant under the plain terms of the insurance policy. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the pollution exclusion clause also provides specific examples of pollutants, such as smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Given the composition of the sewage described above, it is clear that most, if not all, of these specific examples of pollutants were found in Fox Creek. We conclude, therefore, that the sewage released by the city into Fox Creek is within the scope of the policy's pollution exclusion clause.