INSURANCE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Olivia Sontag
In Estate of Wheeler v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 564 P.3d 611 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a pollution exclusion clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy does not exclude coverage for carbon monoxide poisoning arising out of an improperly installed water heater. (Id. at 621–22). A seventeen-year-old renting a cabin from the homeowners died from carbon monoxide poisoning which leaked from an improperly installed water heater. (Id. at 612–13). The homeowners had an insurance policy which excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from pollutants. (Id. at 613). The insurance company argued carbon monoxide is a pollutant and thus the death was not covered by insurance. (Id.). The Supreme Court of Alaska examined the text of the homeowner’s specific insurance policy and asked what the reasonable expectations of the insured would be. (Id. at 615). While acknowledging the word “pollutant” can be construed broadly, the Court reasoned other provisions in the insurance policy would indicate a narrower interpretation of the pollution exclusion. (Id. at 618–19). Following the pollution exclusion clause were exclusions for lead paint, lead based products, and asbestos which the Court reasoned a reasonable insured could infer means exposure to toxic substances typically found within the home would not fall within the pollution exclusion clause. (Id. at 619). Finding that an insured could reasonably expect coverage for liability from carbon monoxide poisoning based on these additional clauses, the Supreme Court of Alaska held the pollution exclusion in the homeowner’s insurance policy does not exclude carbon monoxide poising resulting from an improperly installed water heater. (Id. at 621–22).
