Lacey macmaster
In considering whether escape of pollution is “sudden”, consider the temporal nature of the escape. However, in light of the Graham decision, British Columbia courts are unlikely to follow that approach. In the United States, many jurisdictions find that if the discharge is either sudden or accidental, the pollution exclusion clause does not apply to avoid coverage. the sudden and accidental escapeof water or steam from a domestic appliance located outside your dwelling but such damage is not covered when the escape of water is caused by freezing. We do not insure loss or damage caused by water unless the loss or damage resulted from.
The insurer successfully denied coverage on the basis of a water-damage exclusion clause which provided as follows: Graham sought coverage from his insurer, Canadian Direct Insurance. A few days later he returned home to find a sink hole in his lawn and significant damage to the foundation of his house. When he left home he failed to turn the system to automatic, and the sprinkler continued operating in his absence. In fact, earlier in the day he had turned it on to “manual” to power wash his driveway. He assumed it was set to “automatic” and that it would therefore turn off by itself. As he was leaving home, he noticed his outdoor sprinkler was turned on. In Graham, the insured went on vacation over a weekend. Unless the release is both “sudden and accidental”, the exception does not apply, and the exclusion avoids coverage. Graham confirms that to trigger the “sudden and accidental” exception, the release or escape of pollution, water, etc., must be both “sudden and accidental”. Notably, it does not follow approach taken by some American jurisdictions, which in essence replace the word “or” with “and” (i.e., sudden oraccidental). The case provides a very recent and logical discussion of the scope of such exceptions. This exception is often found in older form pollution exclusion clauses ( Graham is not a “pollution” case, but uses the “sudden and accidental” exception which is found in pollution exclusions). The Graham decision is important because British Columbia courts have rarely addressed the scope of the “sudden and accidental” exception. Canadian Direct Insurance, 2007 BCSC 1291. Supreme Court released reasons for judgment in Graham v. The “Sudden and Accidental” Exception: Graham v.