Opinion ID: 76601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The February 2001 Letter

Text: 33 We next consider Atwood's letter of February 8, 2001, as MSC's denial of coverage. That letter, addressed to Greg Wilkes of the Pinckard Agency, (1) states that MSC has not received formal notice of the claim, (2) refers Greg Wilkes to the pollution exclusion found in the Hendersons' policy, and (3) requests a written explanation as to how the misstatement about prior litigation in the application came about. 34 Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Hendersons, there again are issues of material fact regarding whether this letter was a result of an adequate investigation and whether Atwood fulfilled his duty to marshal all of the pertinent facts with regard to [the Hendersons'] claim. Sockwell, 829 So.2d at 130. First, Atwood's reliance upon the complaint alone is not sufficient to conclude that the Hendersons' claim was not covered by MSC's policy because of the pollution exclusion. The complaint, on its face, refers to rodents and vermin causing damage, which clearly does not fall under the pollution exclusion clause that describes acids and chemicals. Second, the record is clear that, prior to sending his letter, Atwood did not contact the Hendersons to inquire about their claim, the facts pertinent to the application of the pollution exclusion, or even the false information on the application. We find, therefore, genuine issues of material fact as to whether Atwood properly investigated the claim or subjected the results of his investigation to a cognitive evaluation and review before sending his letter. See Simmons, 791 So.2d at 379.