March 28, 2007: Misty Ann Weaver, an employee working for a plastic surgeon in an office building owned by Boxer Property Management Corporation in Houston, Texas, set a fire in the building to cover the fact she was behind on her workload and was afraid of being fired. The fire ripped through the mid-rise building causing the deaths of three people and the injury of several others.

October 28, 2008: Misty Ann sentenced to 25 years in prison after eventually confessing to the deed.

November 21, 2008: Great American Insurance Company files suit against Boxer Property Management Corporation, as they do not feel they should be required to pay the claims for the deaths involved in this incident.

Why is Great American Insurance Company refusing to pay said claims? Because the three individuals who died in the fire died from smoke inhalation, and the insurance has a pollution clause that provides exclusion of claims for smoke, soot, or fumes. Yes, this insurance company is contending that smoke caused by a fire in a building is pollution, and therefore, any associated deaths, injuries, or other damages are not covered by the policy.

I wish I could say I am shocked, but on my grand scale of evil, insurance companies rate only slightly less evil than Satan himself. So, no, I am not shocked an insurance company doesn’t want to pay out on a claim. That happens all the time. What I do find shocking is their attempt to define a smoke inhalation death caused by a building being on fire as a death by pollution. That would, in my mind, be a rather broad definition of pollution.

“This is pushing the boundaries of the absolute pollution exclusion. We’re going to have a battle between the literal language of the policy and the way people speak of pollution.”
–Seth Chandler, University of Houston Law Center professor

Indeed.