Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Scope of Absolute and Total Pollution Exclusions
Insurance carriers and policyholders continue to engage in an ongoing debate with respect to the meaning and application of 'absolute' or 'total' pollution exclusions ' clauses that are contained in most general liability insurance policies sold since 1986. Absolute and total pollution exclusions generally preclude coverage for bodily injury or property damage 'arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants,' and define 'pollutant' to mean 'any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.'
The absolute pollution exclusion was introduced in the mid 1980s to replace the 'qualified' pollution exclusion, which ex-cluded coverage for claims 'arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape … [of] irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon the land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.' The total pollution exclusion was introduced in the late 1980s and differs from the absolute pollution exclusion only in that it removes coverage for releases from products and for certain off-site releases of pollutants.
Despite the passage of time and extensive litigation on the subject, courts continue to be divided with respect to the scope of absolute and total pollution exclusions. Some courts apply pollution exclusions as written to injuries that arise from the 'release' of an 'irritant' or 'contaminant.' Others, however, limit their application to 'classic environmental' pollution, which these courts define to mean releases of hazardous waste into the natural environment.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?