You are here: / / Damage to Building Caused by Silica Dust Excluded from Coverage Under “Pollutants”...

Damage to Building Caused by Silica Dust Excluded from Coverage Under “Pollutants” and “Faulty Workmanship” Policy Exclusions

The Third Department determined the insurer was entitled to summary judgment based upon the exclusions of coverage in the policy. The insured sought coverage of damage caused by silica dust disbursed throughout the insured’s building.  The Third Department held that the “pollutants” and “faulty workmanship” exclusions in the policy precluded coverage, and the “ensuing loss exception” did not apply:

“[A]n insurer seeking to invoke a policy exclusion ‘must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . To determine whether a policy provision is ambiguous, courts are guided by “the reasonable expectations of the average insured upon reading the policy” … . The meaning of any part of such a policy must be determined upon consideration of the policy as a whole … . In addition, “[a]n insurance contract should not be read so that some provisions are rendered meaningless” … . Upon applying these rules of construction, if “an insurance policy’s meaning is not clear or is subject to different reasonable interpretations,” such an ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured … . Because we find that both policy exclusions apply to bar coverage here, we grant defendants’ motion and dismiss the complaint.

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on the pollution exclusion clause. Pursuant to that exclusion in the policy, defendants will not cover loss resulting from the “[d]ischarge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.'” As defined in the policy, “‘[p]ollutants’ means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, waste and any unhealthy or hazardous building materials (including but not limited to asbestos and lead products or materials containing lead).” The record contains unrebutted evidence that silica dust can cause lung disease and respiratory problems, placing such dust within the policy definition of a pollutant as “unhealthy or hazardous building material[],” as well as a “solid . . . irritant or contaminant” … . Broome County v The Travelers Indem Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 01697, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

You might also like
Antenuptial Agreement Was a Valid Contract Which Controlled Interpretation of Trust Documents
TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT).
Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment in a Tax Foreclosure Proceeding—30-Day Statute of Limitations in the Tax Law Applied
THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified as a Search Incident to Arrest Unless the Searching Officer(s) Intended to Arrest Based Upon the Existing Probable Cause—Here the Officers Did Not Intend to Arrest the Defendant for Littering and the Search Was Therefore Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest
Actual Income Is Best Measure of Value of Income-Producing Property/Amount of Mortgage on Property Does Not Necessarily Fairly Reflect Value/Assessment Awarded Can Not Be Lower than that Requested in Article 7 Petition
COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES RELATED BACK TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE TRUST AND THEREFORE WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Tortious Interference with Contract and Unfair Competition Causes of Action... Rules of Evidence Properly Relaxed to Allow Hearsay In Proceeding to Modify...