An insured applied a chemical waterproofing sealant to the brick exterior of her house with the result that she and her family were forced to vacate it because of fumes. Their homeowners insurer denied liability, on the basis of the policy's pollution exclusion, for their claim for additional living expenses and damage to the dwelling and personal property. Lawsuit followed.

A federal district court noted the insureds' argument that the fumes came from a commonly used product sold in stores and, reasonably, were not pollutants contemplated by the policy language. The court, however, found the exclusion reference to fumes and vapors clear and that whether fumes from a household product were commonly understood to be a pollutant was not an issue. It concluded that the exclusion applied to the claimed house damage.

With respect to damage to personal property, the court found that none of the enumerated covered perils applied. It said that smoke damage, claimed by the insureds as pertinent, did not include chemical fume contamination. As for additional living expense, the court said "....it is predicated on a covered loss that makes an insured's residence 'not fit to live in'."

Judgment was granted in favor of the insurer and against the insured.

(BROWN ET UX., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No. 94-7505. July 1, 1996. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5743.)