Absolute Pollution Exclusions: What Part of "Absolute" Confuses You
I was interested to read a comment on absolute pollution exclusions on the Anderson Kill website: "in the context of negligent workplace exposure claims alleging bodily injury from exposure to a product in the stream of commerce, the [absolute] pollution exclusion should not apply." What does the "stream of commerce" have to do with an absolute exclusion? And really, the suggested exception to the exclusion raises broader questions. Don't insurers have the right to decline to issue insurance for certain risks? Barring some statutory obligation, shouldn't insurers be permitted to issue an absolute exclusion for anything at all? If an insurer issues a policy that does not apply to certain risks and the insurer does not collect a premium for these excluded risks, should the insurer be forced to pay for these risks? The attacks on the absolute pollution exclusion-- efforts to infer exceptions that do no not appear in the policy language-- are just wrong.
