Flexdar manufactured rubber stamps and printing plates and in the process, used
ID: 386245 • Letter: F
Question
Flexdar manufactured rubber stamps and printing plates and in the process, used the
chemical trichloroethylene (TCE). When it was discovered that TCE was present in the
groundwater around the plant, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
said Flexdar would be liable for cleanup costs. Flexdar had a general liability policy
and an umbrella policy with State Automobile Mutual Insurance (State Auto). There
was a pollution exclusion in the policy. Pollutants were defined as “any solid, liquid,
gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids,
alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” State Auto said it was not required to cover the costs
for the cleanup. Flexdar sued, arguing that the language of the policy was ambiguous
and therefore open to interpretation by the court. Was the exclusion clause sufficiently
ambiguous so that interpretation was required? Explain.
Explanation / Answer
As stated, the exclusion cause according to me seems to be very much clear and concise although some additional information or details regarding the same would have been better. The exclusion clause in this context clearly mentions that any solid, liquid, gaseous, thermal irritant or contaminant pollutants will be excluded and it may also exclude smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste. I believe that the clause was sufficiently clear and concise and was enough to understand by the organization opting for the policy but again, some details regarding the same would have served the purpose better.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.