Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith
Georgia Supreme Court
784 S.E.2d 422 (2016)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Amy Smith (defendant) sued her landlord, Bobby Chupp (defendant), for injuries her daughter allegedly sustained from ingesting lead-based paint in the home she rented. Chupp insured the house under a commercial general-liability insurance policy (CGL) issued by the Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (GFB) (plaintiff). After Chupp notified GFB of Smith’s claims and requested that it defend him, GFB filed a declaratory action against both Chupp and Smith asserting that the policy did not cover the child’s lead-poisoning injuries and that it had no duty to defend Chupp against Smith’s claims as a result. GFB claimed that the policy’s pollution-exclusion clause excluded lead poisoning from coverage. Specifically, the policy excepted injuries from a pollutant, defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The trial court concluded that lead-based paint clearly qualified as a pollutant within the exclusion and granted summary judgment for GFB. Both Smith and Chupp appealed. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that an earlier case finding carbon-monoxide gas qualified as a pollutant under identical language did not necessarily imply the language was broad enough to cover lead-based paint. Instead, the appellate court found that as the drafter of the policy, the insurer had to specifically except lead-based paint from coverage to exclude it. GFB appealed, and the Georgia Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.