One view is that the cause of loss in this claim is water damage, not pollutants. The asbestos pollutant itself is not a cause of loss to the flooring. Rather, it threatens hazard upon removal of the floor tiles, when the asbestos becomes airborne. Thus, since the loss was not caused by release of pollutants, the exclusion for loss caused by release of pollutants would not be applicable. The asbestos clean up would be an incidental necessitated by reasonable water damage repairs and covered.

 Another view is that the water damage is the loss cause and the removal of the asbestos tile creates an ensuing loss, be it an actual ensuing loss or a threatened ensuing loss. The policy states that any ensuing loss not excluded or excepted is covered. As the pollution dispersal is indeed excluded in the policy, the costs of asbestos handling and disposal would not be covered.

 Others think that the removal of asbestos tiles do not constitute an ensuing loss. Mold, by contrast, is actually caused by water interacting with a particular material. Mold is thus said to be an ensuing loss. Asbestos, however, was not created by the water loss and thus is not an ensuing loss. The asbestos is considered a latent vice or defect. And while the policy also excludes latent vice and defect, the cause of loss was water damage, not asbestos. Because the latent vice of asbestos did not cause the floor damage, the exclusion for loss caused by latent vice would not be applicable. Which interpretation is correct?

 Missouri Subscriber

The asbestos is not an ensuing loss nor does the pollution exclusion apply; you have a water loss, and the removal of material containing asbestos is part of debris removal which is covered. The asbestos isn't really an inherent vice since when it was put in it was acceptable construction – it wasn't until later that we learned of its dangerous side effects. The loss, and the removal of the asbestos containing material, is covered.