Insurance coverage Q&A: When the SWAT team arrives

PropertyCasualty360.com editor’s note: Every claim is different, and some insurance policies can be difficult to interpret for unique situations. FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, the recognized authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry, makes it simple to find credible answers to your complicated coverage questions.

What follows is a reader’s letter and analysis of the situation brought to you by our FC&S experts:

A SWAT team of the local authority deployed tear gas in the home of our insured seeking to take into custody a named insured. The policy is an HO 00 08 (04/91). Courts have generally held this type of loss is sudden and accidental.

Would the tear gas be considered “smoke” to trigger coverage on this closed peril policy? CS or tear gas is a chemical compound dispersed as a fine particulate that leaves a soot-like residue on dwelling and personal property. The damage to the property was burn marks on the floor and residue and odor throughout. 

— Massachusetts Subscriber

When terms aren’t defined in the policy, courts turn to a standard desk reference since that is accessible to most insureds. Merriam-Webster defines smoke as:

1. The gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon.
2. Suspension of particles in a gas.

This certainly fits the discharge of tear gas. Another peril that fits is an explosion, and there is no qualifying or restricting language to the explosion peril. An explosion can be defined as: a large-scale, rapid or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth.

Tear gas is discharged by hand-thrown grenades or canisters, or is fired out of a riot gun. The key ingredient in tear gas is a powder that must be mixed with other chemicals that generate heat and cause the powder to vaporize and aerosolize. This gives you both an explosion and smoke, at least as far as we see it.

The HO 00 08 does not have any pollution exclusion so there is no exclusion that would remove coverage.

Related: 

• Insurance coverage Q&A: Does your dog bite?
• Baseballer’s mold lawsuit is a lesson in insurance burden-shifting
• Redefining the expectations of a mold assessment — Part 1