If that is the case, why have the exception there?

Pennsylvania Subscriber

A

The exception to the pollution exclusion f. provides that there is coverage for property damage or bodily injury arising out of smoke, heat, or fumes from a hostile fire. Smoke and fumes in particular, in and of themselves, are thought of as pollutants, and the form gives coverage for damage arising from these as well as heat. The paragraph the adjuster refers to (f.(2)) is to preclude coverage for an order or request to clean up the effects of pollutants where no hostile fire was involved. In other words, if the insured has been requested to clean up waste he has been dumping in a nearby creek, he cannot submit the bill for the cleanup to his insurer for payment.

As to your particular incident, the editors are not as one in agreeing there is coverage. One editor says that the damage from the pollutants arising from the hostile fire must be direct, as when smoke discolors a nearby building and permeates its contents. Another editor thinks that the heat caused the aerosol cans to release their contents into the water, so the pollution damage arose out of the heat.

It may be left to a court to make the final determination.