The Pollution Exclusion must be BROADENED to include Every Type or Description of a Change in the Appearance or Matter or Existence of ANYTHING known to man or womankind, within the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe, both REAL and IMAGINED!
This is the only way a POLUTION EXCLUSION can hold efficacy if claims can be presented for… cloudy water. Who do they SUE when it RAINS? Do the FISH have to use an OUTHOUSE?
Of course, ALL OTHER COVERAGE would be Nullified under this degree of effective POLLUTION Exclusion as well.
NO NEED FOR INSURANCE, NOTHING IS COVERED, No Need for Courts to Decide on Policy Language.
The courts can spend more time on BODILY INURY Claims. OOOPS, an Injury to a Man or Woman is a CHANGE to their EXISTANCE so.. NO COVERAGE, Excluded by the New and Now More Effective, Broadened Pollution Exclusion.
This takes some mental gymnastics to understand. So because part of the allegation was the non-pollutants cause or contributed to the “damage”, didn’t Liberty have a duty to defend anyway from the beginning? And without a duty to defend, who is participating in the litigation to get it to the point where there is a judgment requiring a duty to indemnify?
Other questions: did Liberty provide a defense for Copart against the homeowners? Did Copart sue Liberty for not providing a defense? How could the underlying suit be settled and this is still being remanded?
The Pollution Exclusion must be BROADENED to include Every Type or Description of a Change in the Appearance or Matter or Existence of ANYTHING known to man or womankind, within the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe, both REAL and IMAGINED!
This is the only way a POLUTION EXCLUSION can hold efficacy if claims can be presented for… cloudy water. Who do they SUE when it RAINS? Do the FISH have to use an OUTHOUSE?
Of course, ALL OTHER COVERAGE would be Nullified under this degree of effective POLLUTION Exclusion as well.
NO NEED FOR INSURANCE, NOTHING IS COVERED, No Need for Courts to Decide on Policy Language.
The courts can spend more time on BODILY INURY Claims. OOOPS, an Injury to a Man or Woman is a CHANGE to their EXISTANCE so.. NO COVERAGE, Excluded by the New and Now More Effective, Broadened Pollution Exclusion.
Why is COMMON SENCE so UNCOMMON?
What is “Common Sence”?
This takes some mental gymnastics to understand. So because part of the allegation was the non-pollutants cause or contributed to the “damage”, didn’t Liberty have a duty to defend anyway from the beginning? And without a duty to defend, who is participating in the litigation to get it to the point where there is a judgment requiring a duty to indemnify?
Other questions: did Liberty provide a defense for Copart against the homeowners? Did Copart sue Liberty for not providing a defense? How could the underlying suit be settled and this is still being remanded?