Opinion ID: 759762
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, asbestos....

Text: 14 Policy § 5.B.1.n (last emphasis added). 15 To be effective, a provision that excludes coverage must be explicit. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schilansky, 176 A.2d 786, 788 (D.C.1961). The insurer bears the burden of establishing that an exclusion bars coverage. Washington Sports and Entertainment, Inc. v. United Coastal Ins. Co., 7 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.1998) (applying District of Columbia law). 16 NEMA argues the welders alleged a claim arising from negligence, not pollution, and therefore that the pollution exclusion should not operate to deny coverage with respect to the welder claims. Two factors militate against this argument: 1) NEMA commits itself that the welder claims arise from exposure to pollution and 2) the fact that the welders style their claims in negligence does not solve the pollution exclusion issue before us. 17 First, NEMA's complaint asserts the welder claims arise from the release of a gaseous pollutant, specifically, fumes, particulates and gases containing manganese. This Court need look no further than the exclusion's plain language to conclude that it explicitly applies to the underlying actions. The exclusion serves to relieve Gulf of its duty to defend claims where those claims arise from the creation of an injurious condition involving any Pollutant. Policy § 5.B.1.n. The exclusion defines pollutant to include any solid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including fumes, and operates to exclude coverage whether or not [NEMA] caused or contributed to the pollution. Id. As NEMA acknowledges, the welder claims arise from the creation of injury resulting from exposure to manganese fumes, and fumes qualify as a pollutant under the exclusion. 18 Second, the style of the welder claims is irrelevant to the issue whether the claims fall within the ambit of the pollution exclusion. See, e.g., American States Ins. Co. v. Skrobis Painting & Decorating, Inc., 182 Wis.2d 445, 513 N.W.2d 695, 698-99 (1994) (noting that although theory of liability asserted may change, the occurrence that caused injury will not and rejecting argument that nature of claim alters applicability-of-exclusion analysis). Every action involving bodily injury or property damage must assert some theory of liability but the theory chosen has no impact on the cause of the injury. In analyzing the applicability of the exclusion, all that matters is whether the injurious condition about which the welders complain arose from the dissemination of a pollutant. 19 A number of courts have applied these exclusions literally even where the underlying claims, like the claims here, alleged negligence. See, e.g., American States Ins. Co. v. Nethery, 79 F.3d 473, 474-75, 477-78 (5th Cir.1996) (enforcing exclusion to apply to allegations of gross negligence); Cook v. Evanson, 83 Wash.App. 149, 920 P.2d 1223, 1224, 1227 (Wash.Ct.App.1996) (enforcing pollution exclusion to apply to allegations that concrete sealant was negligently applied); League of Minnesota Cities Ins. Trust v. City of Coon Rapids, 446 N.W.2d 419, 420, 422 (Minn.App.1989) (enforcing exclusion to apply to allegations of negligent failure to ventilate, negligent failure to maintain, and negligent infliction of emotional distress). 20 NEMA urges this Court to consider its reasonable expectation of coverage and to restrict application of the exclusion to only environmental pollution. See, e.g., Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 132 F.3d 526, 530-31 (9th Cir.1997) (considering reasonable expectations of policyholder and limiting scope of pollution exclusion); Stoney Run Co. v. Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. Co., 47 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1995) (same); Regional Bank of Colorado, N.A. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 35 F.3d 494, 496 (10th Cir.1994) (same); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Advanced Adhesive Tech., Inc., 73 F.3d 335, 339 (11th Cir.1996) (construing insurance policy so as to most accurately reflect[ ] the intention of the parties to the insurance contract). 21 The District of Columbia has rejected application of the reasonable-expectation test where, as here, the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous and contains neither technical terms nor terms of art. Smalls v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 678 A.2d 32, 34 (D.C.1996). Because the pollution exclusion unambiguously covers the welder claims this Court will not apply the reasonable-expectation test to limit the breadth of the pollution exclusion. 4 22 Gulf's position that the exclusion should be read as written--and not be limited to environmental pollution only--comports with the well-settled rule of District of Columbia law that if a policy is plain and unambiguous the court will construe it without reference to any acts or conduct of the parties thereto which evince their interpretation of such contract. Bolle v. Hume, 619 A.2d 1192, 1197 (D.C.1993) (quotation omitted); see also American Red Cross v. Travelers Indem. Co. of R.I., 816 F.Supp. 755, 758 (D.D.C.1993) (applying District of Columbia law and noting, If the policy language is unambiguous, the Court must apply the plain meaning of the language used and should not consider extrinsic evidence as to how to interpret the policy.). 23 That the pollution exclusion at issue here clearly is not limited to atmospheric or environmental pollution further supports the argument that it should be enforced as written. See, e.g., Board of Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 517 N.W.2d 888, 893-94 (Minn.1994) (holding pollution exclusion that did not limit its terms to atmospheric pollution applied to claim arising from release of asbestos fibers in enclosed environment).