Insurer Cannot Rely on Total Pollution Exclusion to Refuse Duty to Defend in Negligence Claim.

Insurer Cannot Rely on Total Pollution Exclusion to Refuse Duty to Defend in Negligence Claim.

In Hemlow Estate v. Co-operators General Insurance Co, 2021 ONCA 908, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the insurer had a duty to defend a claim relating to the negligence of the insured, which resulted in the insured’s own death and property damage at the location where he was working.  The court affirmed that the Pollution Exclusion did not apply, as the claim was based in negligence and breach of contract, and not from the escape of a pollutant.

Background

John Hemlow, the insured, was killed in a workplace accident. Hemlow was a contractor, who during the course of his work, opened a valve to a pipe releasing pressurized ammonia that caused extensive property damage. As a result, the property owners brought an action in negligence, nuisance and breach of contract against the Estate of Hemlow.

Hemlow had a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy with Co-Operators. The policy contained a Total Pollution Exclusion, which excluded coverage for damage caused by “pollutants”. In a different part of the policy, not connected to the Total Pollution Exclusion, the word “Pollutants” was defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, odours, vapour, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.”

The insurer relied on the Total Pollution Exclusion in refusing to defend the estate. The estate brought an application seeking a declaration the insurer had a duty to defend. The application judge granted the application and held that Co-operators had a duty to defend. The judge found the word “pollution” was ambiguous in the policy and where there is ambiguity in the contract, the court’s interpretation will be guided by the reasonable expectation of the parties. The judge held the reasonable expectation of the insured was that the exclusion applied solely to the pollution of the natural environment. Therefore, the exclusion did not apply.

The Duty to Defend

On appeal, the Court upheld the application judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal relied on the general principle that the existence of a duty to defend depends on the nature of claims made. Here, the claim made by the plaintiff fell within the terms of the CGL policy because it was a straightforward claim for breach of contract and negligence. There was nothing in the statement of claim that involved, or asserted, a claim arising out of pollution. Hence, the duty to defend arises.

The Court held the fact that the damage causing substance was a pollutant did not change the nature of the claim, stating “It also must not be allowed to distract from the proper interpretation of the CGL policy nor obscure or distort the conclusion as to whether a duty to defend arises.”

Review of the Law on Pollution Exclusions

In arriving at its decision, the Court of Appeal touched briefly on history of pollution exclusion litigation.

Zurich Insurance Co. v. 686234 Ontario Ltd., [2002] O.J. No. 4496, was a Court of Appeal decision that was very similar to the facts of this case. In Zurich, carbon monoxide leaked from the insured building’s furnace resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court in Hemlow Estate noted the similarity between the cases, where both involved an  accidental leak of a “pollutant”, but in neither of them involved alleged negligence in the handling or potential discharge of a pollutant. The Court of Appeal stated that it is important to recognize that Mr. Hemlow was not engaged in work that generally involved risks from pollution.

Next, the Court distinguished ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Miracle2011 ONCA 321 from this appeal. The statement of claim in ING was framed as a claim for damage to the natural environment caused by a form of pollution. Sharpe JA wrote in ING that such a claim fits entirely within the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion, which was “to preclude coverage for the cost of government-mandated environmental cleanup under existing and emerging legislation making polluters responsible for damage to the natural environment”. The Court noted that the damages sought in the case before them were different than in ING.  Specifically the damages sought by the plaintiffs against the Hemlow Estate were for out of pocket expenses, business losses and property damage, which did not fit within the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion.

Conclusion

Hemlow Estate provides an important reminder to insurers that it is the nature of the claim which governs the duty to defend analysis.  Even where the actions of the insured led to the discharge of pollutants, a claim pled in negligence may not engage the pollution exclusion clause.

As a secondary point, the Court touched upon the fact that Hemlow’s work does not involve risks of pollution. As stated in Zurich and ING, the purpose of the pollution exclusion clause was traditionally used to limit liability for damage to the environment from industrial pollution. The facts of Hemlow cannot be read to fit under this purpose.

Insights & Commentary

Municipal Road Disrepair and Motor Vehicle Accidents:  Does Driver Conduct Matter? - photo
  • Publications

Municipal Road Disrepair and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Does Driver Conduct Matter?

By: Shadi Katirai and Michael Connolly Introduction Section 44(1) of Ontario’s Municipal Act[1] imposes a duty on municipalities to keep highways and bridges in a state of reasonable repair, while section 44(2) notes that municipalities that fail to do so are liable under the Negligence Act[2] for damages that people sustain because of that failure. … Continued

by

When Cryptocurrencies and Insurance Policies collide – The D&O Securities Exclusion in the Blockchain Age - photo
  • Publications

When Cryptocurrencies and Insurance Policies collide – The D&O Securities Exclusion in the Blockchain Age

During the fall of 2020, when Ontarians were hunkering down for the second COVID-19 pandemic wave, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Kik Interactive Inc. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada[1]. The Court was tasked with interpreting whether the respondent insurer’s securities exclusion worked to preclude coverage for cryptocurrency sales to … Continued

The Court of Appeal Reconciles Conflicting Indemnity and Covenants to Insure: There is no Legal Rule that a Covenant to Insure necessarily bars Litigation - photo
  • Publications

The Court of Appeal Reconciles Conflicting Indemnity and Covenants to Insure: There is no Legal Rule that a Covenant to Insure necessarily bars Litigation

The Court of Appeal’s latest word on tort immunity is a good reminder of the importance of proper contractual interpretation, particularly where covenants to insure and indemnity obligations conflict with each other. Tort immunity refers to both covenants to insure and waivers of subrogation that prevent one party (or its insurer through a subrogated action) … Continued

One Year Later: Looking Back at Louis v Poitras - photo
  • Publications

One Year Later: Looking Back at Louis v Poitras

In January 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal released Louis v Poitras,[1] the now definitive case on striking civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Poitras was the culmination of the onslaught of motions to strike civil juries due to prejudice arising from pandemic-related delay. In a concise and strong decision, the Ontario Court of … Continued

by

Conducting Virtual Examinations - photo
  • Publications

Conducting Virtual Examinations

COVID-19 and the public health response to the global pandemic has had a significant impact on the conduct of civil litigation in Ontario and elsewhere.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has encouraged all regions to adopt virtual proceedings wherever possible.  It has requested that counsel and parties accommodate requests made by opposing counsel or … Continued

by

Discovering a Policy Breach Late in Litigation: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada 2021 SCC 47 - photo
  • Publications

Discovering a Policy Breach Late in Litigation: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada 2021 SCC 47

In the recent decision, Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of promissory estoppel in the insurance context. Specifically, the Court considered whether an insurer was estopped from denying coverage because it had already provided a defence, before it … Continued

All News