Carbon Monoxide caused by release of gas from faulty boiler repair?    Not covered. See, Harleysville Ins. Group v. Omaha Gas Appliance Co., 278 Neb. 547, 772 N.W.2d 88 (2009)(“The umbrella policy, like the general liability policy, excluded coverage for liability occasioned by the release of pollutants – regardless of what level of human culpability was involved.”).

Mercury found in apartment leased to renters?  Not covered.

See, Ferrell v. State Farm, 2003 WL 21058165 (Neb. Ct. of App. 2003)(“State Farm’s definition of ‘pollutant’ is clear, is susceptible of only one possible interpretation, and, thus, is unambiguous.”).

Xylene released from fumes in an applied floor sealant?   Not covered.

See, Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Becker Warehouse, Inc., 262 Neb. 746, 635 N.W.2d 112 (2001)(“… (A)bsolute pollution exclusions are unambiguous as a matter of law and, thus, exclude coverage for all claims alleging damage caused by pollutants.”).

Herbicide/Pesticide that drifted onto a cotton crop?   Not covered.

See, Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Protection Alliance, LLC., 620 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2010)( The policy plainly excludes coverage for ‘property damage’ which would not have occurred … but for the … migration … of ‘pollutants,’ defining ‘pollutants’ in relevant part as including ‘any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal … contaminant, including …. chemicals.’ ”).


Herbicide/Pesticide exposure after a malathion was applied to a city park?   Covered.   See, Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Pittsburg, Kansas, 768 F. Supp. 1463 (D. Kansas 1991)(“Since spraying or fogging operations designed to control insects is an undertaking assumed by many municipalities, the insurer has the burden to explicitly exclude this activity from the broad commercial general liability coverage that it affords its clients. We conclude that Westchester has failed to define the limitations of its pollution exclusion clause in clear and explicit terms.”).

Grease odors from cooking oils and animal fat at a rendering plant?  Not covered.

See, Kruger Commodities, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty, 923 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ala 1996) (The court there said that “a reasonable insured would understand that these materials were considered waste” – which was defined in the policy as a “pollutant”).


Hog Manure spilled on a road?  Not covered.

See, Weber v. IMT Ins. Co., 462 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Iowa 1990) (“…(M)anure falls within the definition of waste material as set forth in the pollution exclusion.”).