Opinion ID: 2743762
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 2003 and 2006 Policies

Text: The 2003 and 2006 policies, which contain an identical pollution 4 As a historical note, the “total pollution exclusion” within CGL policies has evolved over the past forty years as an effort by the insurance industry to limit its liability for the potentially large costs associated with environmental litigation. See Kenneth S. Abraham, The Rise and Fall of Commercial Liability Insurance, 87 Va. L. Rev. 85, 104 (2001). Accordingly, there is no question that the standard-form pollution exclusions have aimed for the broad applicability that Headwaters challenges here. Id. -12- exclusion, 5 excise coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” that stems from “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’” when combined with at least one of five circumstances enumerated in lettered subparts. App. Vol. II at 283–84; App. Vol. III at 530. 6 The district court held that the allegations in the complaint fell within subpart c of the pollution exclusion. That provision excludes coverage for bodily 5 Before the district court, Headwaters argued that certain “endorsements” contained in the 2006 policy effectively deleted the pollution exclusion in its entirety. The district court disagreed, and Headwaters does not make the argument on appeal. See Aplt. Br. at 18–19. Accordingly, for our purposes the pollution exclusions for the 2003 and 2006 policies are the same. 6 In relevant part, the exclusions take away coverage for: “Bodily injury” or “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants”: