Let's start with the pollution exclusion and coverage for the dwelling. At first glance, the exclusion seems pretty straightforward. The discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants, unless such action is caused by a peril insured against under Coverage C, is excluded. The policy then goes on to define pollutant as any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste is further defined as materials to be recycled or reclaimed.

 But does the definition of pollutant really apply to a dead body and bodily fluids? The policy wording specifies chemicals, chemical by-products, or the result of some manufacturing operation. Dead bodies aren't manufactured, nor are they a chemical by-product.

 Let's look at the wording again. The policy definition begins: "any solid, liquid, gaseous…" which is pretty all encompassing. The next few words however are important as they pertain directly to the solids, liquids or gases: "…or thermal irritant or contaminant…" An irritant is something that irritates the skin on contact. While bodily fluids in a house may be unnerving, they are not irritants. They do not create inflammation when they come into contact with the skin. A contaminant is something that contaminates or pollutes; according to Merriam Webster Online, to contaminate is to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association; to make inferior or impure by admixture.

 Bodily fluids certainly would soil the floor, carpet, etc. but would they make it inferior by admixture? The policy gives examples of pollutants; it lists smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. All of these are by-products of manufacturing processes. The argument can be made that smoke and soot are the result of a natural process, the burning of combustible objects. In relation to the pollution exclusion they need to be viewed in context. The context of the pollution exclusion involves substances created by a manufacturing process.

 A Google search for pollution definitions returns much the same type of interpretation:

·Undesirable state of the natural environment by contamination with harmful substances as a result of human activities

·The release of harmful environmental substances resulting from human activity

·Impurities and waste in the environment

·A harmful change in the natural environment caused by human activities – examples include oil spills, exhaust emissions, overuse of pesticides, etc.

 The remains of a body from a self-inflicted injury or a decomposed body that is discovered days or weeks after death do not fit any of these pollution definitions. If the policy intent had been to exclude biological emanations, language to that effect could have easily been added. Therefore, a dead body and its fluids are not pollutants. Granted, with growing concern about pandemic flu and other viruses policies may be changed in the future, but for now, the policy language does not exclude human remains as pollutants. So there is coverage for the dwelling.

 But what about the personal property? That coverage is on a named perils basis, and death or suicide is not a named peril. However, there are named perils that do fit with deliberate or accidental causes of death. An insured deliberately or accidentally shoots himself. Shooting is not a named peril, but explosion is. So what is an explosion? Merriam Webster Online defines explosion as the act of exploding or a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth. A bullet can be described as rapidly bursting forth from a gun, thus providing the explosion cause of loss for personal property.

 What about other causes of death? An overdose of pills or the slashing of wrists are again not named perils, so while cleanup of the dwelling would be covered, cleanup of the personal property would not be. However, personal property is covered for accidental discharge or overflow from a plumbing device and damage from an artificially generated electrical current. If an insured drowns in the tub and the water overflows there is coverage to damage to personal property. Likewise, if the insured is electrocuted while sticking a fork in a toaster, any damage to property caused by the artificially generated current of the toaster coursing through the insured and damaging property would be covered.

 So that brings us to the intentional loss exclusion. Any loss arising out of any act of an insured commits with the intent to cause a loss is excluded. The operative wording here is the intent to cause a loss. A suicidal insured certainly intends to commit bodily harm, but does he also intend to create a loss to the personal property? No. There are plenty of ways to cause a loss to property without terminating your own life; that is quite an extreme way to cause property damage. It's much easier to set a fire, let the tub overflow (just don't fall in) or otherwise damage property. The intent of a suicidal insured is not to cause a loss to property, but to put an end to his life. Therefore, even though the suicide is a deliberate and intentional act, it is not an intentional act in creating a loss to property. Therefore, the intentional loss exclusion does not apply.

 As discussed, dead bodies and their effluences are not considered pollutants, so coverage exists for the clean-up and removal of remains from the dwelling. Regarding property coverage that is on a named peril basis, the actual cause of loss is the deciding element for coverage. So when you see dead people, remember that there is coverage in many instances.