The magistrate recommended that the policy issued to the club's groundskeeper  containing a Pollution Exclusion provided no coverage for a gasoline leak. Glocester County Club v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149666 (D. R.I. Aug. 5, 2021).      The groundskeeper, Mr. Simonelli, was in charge of maintaining Glocester County Club's (GCC) greens. He applied for a policy from Scottsdale and described the operations as "Pesticide/Herbicide for golf greens." GCC was identified as an additional insured. The application stated that it was the basis of the contract should a policy be issued.      The policy was issued with a Pollution Exclusion barring coverage for property damage arising out of release or escape of pollutants. The policy also included a Pesticide Endorsement.      GCC stored gasoline to fuel thirty pieces of equipment, including golf carts. Nine pieces of equipment were used for pesticide and herbicide application operations by Mr. Simonelli. The gasoline tank began to leak and contaminated the soil and ground water on GCC's property and that of its neighbor. The state notified GCC that it was responsible for remediation. GCC also agreed to to pay the neighbor's claim.     GCC then turned to Scottsdale. The claim was denied based on Pollution Exclusion. Scottsdale determined that the Pesticide Endorsement was inapplicable because it applied only to ongoing operations arising out of pest control services and the leak did not occur in connection with the performance of such services. GCC sued and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.     GCC agreed that the Pollution Exclusion was potentially fatal to its claim. But GCC relied upon the Pesticide Endorsement because the vehicles Mr. Simonelli used for pesticide application needed gasoline and were fueled from the leaking gasoline tank.      The court determined that the Pesticide Endorsement would only be applicable if the Pollution Exclusion was ignored. The court considered the meaning of "operations" in the Pollution Exclusion. The dictionary definition was "performance of a practical work or of something involving the practical application of principles or processes." The policy's "Description of Operations" stated in the Pesticide Endorsement was "Pest Control Services." Therefore, the term "operations" was not ambiguous. It was limited to Mr. Simonelli's pest control services and did not extend to the general operations of the golf course for which the leaking gasoline tank was used. Further, in the application, Mr. Simonelli described the "operations" as "Pesticide/Herbicide for golf greens" and specified that the "operations" did not involve the storing of hazardous materials, for example in a fuel tank.      Here, the pollution discharge did not occur contemporaneously with Mr. Simonelli's performance of his pest control service operations. Nor was GCC's loss due to a discharge of gasoline brought by Mr. Simonelli to the premises on which the leak occurred "in connection with" Mr. Simonelli's performance of pest control service operations.      The Pollution Exclusion was clear and barred coverage for environmental contamination caused by a pollution discharge that occurred on premises owned or occupied by GCC. Therefore, the magistrate recommended that summary judgment should be issued in favor of Scottsdale, which GCC's motion should be denied.     

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/2YMfFel