Insurance Co. claims smoke from fire that killed three pollution- not fire related

[Ichingcarpenter]

An insurance company with a potential $25 million liability from a 2007 Houston office fire is claiming smoke that killed three people was "pollution" and surviving families shouldn't be compensated for their losses since the deaths were not caused directly by the actual flames.

Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup — would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.
"This is shocking. It's an extraordinary effort by an insurance company to avoid paying on a contract for insurance," said Randy Sorrels, who represents several family members in wrongful death lawsuits from the fire in a six-story atrium building on the North Loop.

Great American has asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal to find that the deaths caused by the smoke, fumes and soot from the March 2007 fire set by a nurse working in the building will not be covered by the policy because there is a specific exclusion for pollution and it mentions smoke, fumes and soot.
'We think it is wrong'

"This took me by surprise," said Don Jackson, the Houston lawyer for building owners Boxer Property Management Corp. He said the insurance company that has the primary $1 million policy on the premises hasn't made this argument and he disagrees with the effort by excess insurance carrier Great American.
"We think it is wrong. It's inappropriate for the insurance company to try to run and hide now," said Jackson.
In October, vocational nurse Misty Ann Weaver was sentenced to 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of felony murder and one count of first-degree arson for setting the fire to conceal that she had failed to complete paperwork on time.>>>snip


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6168688.html

[Warpy]

1. They're going to have a hard time explaining

how deaths caused by smoke inhalation from an arson fire were caused by industrial pollution, which is what the exclusion is for. Unless the hospital had changed its business plan to "destroy facility through fire," there is no way they can cite on the job pollution as a cause of death.

My guess is that the insurance company will get its ass handed to it by the judge on this one.

[rpannier]

2. I would like to say that their claim is just way too stupid to work

but you never know.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. I liked the take that Consumerist.com had...

http://consumerist.com/5113770/to-avoid-paying-25-million-insurance-co-claims-smoke-killing-3-in-fire-was-pollution

When he thought of that loophole, that insurance lawyer must have pumped his fist in the air and ran down the cubicles demanding high-fives from people on both sides of the aisle and then gone and rewarded himself with an extra candybar from the vending machine. As they stood there waiting for the circular arm to wind out and release the chocolate surprise, he bet himself he could find a way to count it as a business expense. Easy there, big guy, he thought to himself, pride comes before a fall.

BONUS FUN FACT: The fire was started by a nurse who wanted to conceal she didn't complete paperwork on time.

[sam sarrha]

4. sorta like someone drowns & the water had nothing to do with it, th heat probably seared their lungs

that is usually the case,