More than four years after the insurer denied coverage for an asbestos-related claim, the insured asked the insurer to reevaluate the claim, stating that its loss was caused by vandalism. The insurer resisted. This case is Woodcliff Lake Board of Education v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). Please note that this case is unpublished and therefore has limited precedential value.

In 2005, the Board had construction projects in progress at certain schools. Asbestos material was discovered and the Board hired asbestos abatement contractors to remove the asbestos. As a result of the abatement schedule, none of the construction contractors were permitted to be in the affected areas. However, when the abatement team showed up, it discovered two plumbers working in the prohibited area. The team also found that asbestos had been improperly disturbed and appeared to be strewn about the area.

The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and the EPA got involved, and the Board was ordered to clean up the area. The Board incurred over $150,000 in expenses for the emergency abatement services. The Board was insured by Zurich under a commercial insurance policy, and the insured made a claim for the cost of the abatement. Zurich denied the claim based on the pollution exclusion.