Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith
784 S.E.2d 422, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 245, 298 Ga. 716 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An absolute pollution exclusion clause in a commercial general liability insurance policy, which broadly defines a 'pollutant' as any 'irritant or contaminant,' unambiguously applies to preclude coverage for bodily injuries arising from the ingestion of lead-based paint.
Facts:
- Bobby Chupp owned a residential rental property.
- Amy Smith and her daughter, Tyasia Brown, were tenants in Chupp's rental property.
- The house contained deteriorating lead-based paint, which Smith observed was chipping, flaking, and peeling in every room.
- Tyasia Brown allegedly ingested lead from the deteriorating paint.
- As a result of the ingestion, Brown allegedly sustained lead poisoning and other injuries.
- Chupp was insured under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued by Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (GFB) for the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Amy Smith, on behalf of her daughter Tyasia Brown, sued her landlord, Bobby Chupp, in trial court for personal injuries.
- Chupp's insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (GFB), filed a declaratory judgment action in trial court against Smith and Chupp, seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Chupp.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of GFB, ruling that Brown's injuries were excluded from coverage by the policy’s pollution exclusion clause.
- Smith and Chupp (the appellants) appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the term 'pollutant' was ambiguous as applied to lead-based paint and should be construed in favor of the insured.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted GFB's (the appellant's) petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an absolute pollution exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy, which defines 'pollutant' as 'any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,' preclude coverage for personal injury claims arising from the ingestion of deteriorating lead-based paint in a residential rental property?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Chief Justice
Yes. An absolute pollution exclusion in a CGL policy that broadly defines 'pollutant' as any 'irritant or contaminant' unambiguously precludes coverage for injuries arising from the ingestion of lead-based paint. The court's role is to apply the explicit and unambiguous terms of an insurance contract as written, giving words their 'usual and common' meaning. The policy at issue defines a 'pollutant' broadly to include 'any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant.' Citing its controlling precedent in Reed v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., the court rejected the argument that pollution exclusions are limited to traditional industrial or environmental harm. Just as carbon monoxide was found to be a pollutant in Reed, lead present in paint unambiguously qualifies as a 'contaminant' under the policy's plain language. Therefore, the court must enforce the exclusion as written without considering its historical purpose or construing ambiguity where none exists.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Georgia's strict, textualist approach to interpreting 'absolute pollution exclusion' clauses, reinforcing the precedent set in Reed. It firmly rejects the view held by some jurisdictions that such exclusions should be limited to traditional environmental pollution based on their historical purpose. The ruling significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes a 'pollutant' under these standard CGL policies to include common household hazards like lead paint. This shifts the financial risk for such injuries from insurers to landlords and other policyholders, potentially requiring them to seek specific, and likely more expensive, coverage for such risks.
