Given the current wording of the exclusion, the insurance company is within its bounds in denying this loss; however, whether or not it will ultimately be successful in avoiding payment if the insured presses the issue in court is open to question.

The case of Thompson v. Temple , 580 So. 2d 1133 (La. App., 1991) is right on point: under the liability portion of a homeowners policy, the insured made a claim for coverage for bodily injury to a tenant of the insured, caused by carbon monoxide leaking from a bathroom heater. The insurer denied coverage based upon the pollution exclusion.

The court found that the pollution exclusion was intended to exclude coverage for active industrial polluters, and that the insurance industry had added pollution exclusions to policies to exclude coverage for insureds that knowingly pollute the environment over a period of time. The situation described was held to be outside the scope of the exclusion, the court stating, “it is unlikely that the insurance industry intended such an exclusion clause to apply to this situation.”

Whether other jurisdictions would agree with the Louisiana interpretation of the pollution exclusion is not knowable until additional cases are decided.