This exclusion is largely the same as the bodily injury and property damage contractual liability exclusion.
This exclusion precludes coverage for personal injury sustained by a person as the result of an offense directly or indirectly related to the employment of that person by an insured. This is an example in which there is an attempt to keep the boundaries of personal liability and business liability clear and separate.
This exclusion is substantially identical to the bodily injury and property damage business exclusion and needs no further explanation.
This exclusion precludes coverage for personal injury arising out of public or civic activities by an insured for which the insured receives pay. This is a liability exposure that should be covered by the insurer of the governmental or other body for which an insured performs civic or public activities, such as a homeowners association.
This exclusion is essentially identical to the bodily injury to insureds exclusion of the bodily injury and property damage coverages.
This exclusion precludes personal injury coverage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge of pollutants. It contains an insurance industry standard definition of pollutants. This exclusion is included in the personal injury endorsement because common theories of liability asserted in pollution lawsuits by adjoining or nearby landowners or by governmental bodies include nuisance and trespass. These claims can at times fall into the wrongful entry group of personal injury offenses, depending on how those defenses are defined.
This precludes personal injury coverage for the costs arising out of requests, demands, or orders that an insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of the pollutants. The best way to distinguish between the prior exclusion and this exclusion is that the prior exclusion is aimed at damages claims, whereas this exclusion is aimed at the costs and expenses of complying with federal and state pollution remediation statutes. The latter costs and expenses are sometimes characterized as not constituting damages.
For example, an adjoining landowner can sue you for damage to his property caused by your release of pollutants. Such a suit would be the subject of the personal injury pollution exclusion. Under federal and state environmental statutes, environmental regulatory bodies can issue administrative orders requiring you to test for, monitor, and remediate pollutants and pollution. The pollution remediation expense exclusion would apply to these sorts of claims.
Alternately, the environmental regulatory bodies can perform the testing, monitoring, and remediation of pollutants and then sue you to recover the costs of having done so as damages. This variation on the personal injury pollution exclusions is aimed at governmental damages claims in the form of reimbursement for their costs of testing, monitoring, or remediating pollutants.
Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article. Articleinput.com is a free articles resource thus practically any visitor can submit an article. However if you notice any copyrighted material, please contact us and we will remove the article(s) in discussion right away.
Note: This article was sent to us by: Sandra Darphs at 10062010
1. Countries have different disclosure obligations
All articles are property of their respective authors. Please read our Privacy Policy!
© 2009 ArticleInput.com.
Partners: Damenmode