Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that terms “discharge” and “dispersal” in total pollution exclusion were ambiguous and did “not clearly and unequivocally exclude a personal injury claim arising from indoor exposure to plaintiff insured’s tools of its trade”
• concluding that terms “discharge” and “dispersal” in total pollution exclusion were ambiguous and did “not clearly and unequivocally exclude a personal injury claim arising from indoor exposure to plaintiff insured’s tools of its trade”
• concluding that terms “discharge” and “dispersal” in total pollution exclusion were ambiguous and did “not clearly and unequivocally exclude a personal injury claim arising from indoor exposure to plaintiff insured’s tools of its trade”
• holding that pollution exclusion was ambiguous as applied to “ordinary paint or solvent fumes that drifted a short distance from the area of the insured’s intended use and allegedly caused inhalation injuries to a bystander”
• describing this interpretive tool as “fundamental(]” to reading an insurance policy
• “It follows that policy exclusions are given a strict and narrow construction, with any ambiguity resolved against the insurer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).