Lead Paint And Such Exclusions Not Discriminatory

General Liability	Lead Exclusion
Bodily Injury	Redlining

A young girl suffered serious bodily injury from her exposure to lead paint, which had been applied to both the interior and exterior of the dwelling she and her mother rented from the insureds. The insureds were covered by a premises liability policy.

The mother filed suit on behalf of her daughter against the insureds as property owners. They, in turn, requested defense and coverage from their liability insurer. The insurer denied both defense and coverage, citing an exclusionary endorsement that had been attached to the policy stating: "LEAD EXCLUSION . . . A. This insurance does not apply: (1) To Bodily Injury, Property Damage or Personal Injury arising in whole or in part out of the mining, processing, manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, installation, removal, disposal handling, use or existence of, exposure to, or contact with lead or lead contained in goods, products or materials . . . "

The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer. On appeal, it was contended that the exclusion did not apply to lead paint specifically and that further, the exclusion should be denied as it violated the Fair Housing Act. It was also contended that the insurer was unfairly discriminatory with such an exclusion, especially to minor children—further, the insurer redlining in their application of such based upon race and national origin.

The Connecticut Superior Court reviewed the case and determined that the policy's language was clear and unambiguous in excluding lead products. Based upon the wording therein, not every product excluded need be listed. The court further concluded that since no specific regulation in the Fair Housing Act could be cited as applicable, no violation was found. Additionally, no evidence of unfair discrimination or redlining could be produced; thus, the decision of the trial court in favor of the insurer was affirmed.

Peerless Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gonzalez et al., Defendants-Appellants. Connecticut. No. SC 15579. July 8, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6184.