Hollier Floor Covering, Inc. was hired by the LaFleur family to do some flooring work in their home. As part of its work, Hollier removed some sheets of old vinyl flooring. Later they discovered that the old flooring material contained asbestos. The LaFleurs suffered injuries and their home was contaminated. They sued Hollier as well as Hollier’s insurer, American Central Insurance, for damages. Hollier filed a claim under the general liability policy it held from American. American denied the claim and requested a summary judgment. The insurer wanted a ruling on their assertion that their policy’s asbestos exclusion relieved them of any obligation to respond to the LaFleurs’ claim. The policy’s exclusion specifically excluded coverage related to loss involving asbestos, including any obligation to even defend any party against such losses. The trial court agreed with American and granted judgment in their favor. Hollier appealed.

During the appeal, Hollier agreed that the American exclusion was valid. However, Hollier then claimed that coverage was owed to them based on their negligence in not taking the proper precautions before removing the old flooring. Further they failed to follow state and federal regulations on the removal of materials containing asbestos. In Hollier’s opinion, their wrongful acts fell outside of the exclusion, separately qualifying for coverage.

The court reviewed a similar case as well as the policy wording. In its opinion, the exclusion unambiguous and clearly expressed the insurer’s intent to avoid any loss related to asbestos. The court rejected Hollier’s argument that the loss also involved negligence as the "negligence" was still rooted in a source of loss that was clearly excluded. The trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of American was affirmed.

Therian LaFleur, et al., Plaintiffs v. Hollier Floor Covering, Incorporated et al., Defendants. LACtApp. No. 00-00969. Filed December 6, 2000. Affirmed. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 7609.