environmental Strategist, between the lines: In a past article, “Must Read For Insurance Professionals That Sell Commercial Fire Insurance Policies,” I strategize why insureds need a financial assurance plan before a fire occurs to address environmental liabilities caused by fires. After a fire occurs, insured’s need monies to address the contamination left behind by the firefighters in putting out the fire along with charred, toxic remnants of real and personal property.
Fire policies generally offer a token amount to address clean up after a fire. The cleanup limit offered in a fire policy is substandard because the insurance carrier does not want to foot the bill for pollution liabilities that result due to a fire. Environmental insurance plays a critical role in filling in this coverage gap created by fire policies.
Offering substandard cleanup limits is the same strategy executed by standard property & casualty insurance carriers who offer “limited pollution coverage”. The term “limited pollution coverage” is an oxymoron because the “limited pollution coverage”, limits the insurance carrier’s exposure to paying for a pollution claim and has a very tight window to discover and report a pollution claim for coverage to be in force.
As the article below points out, adding fuel to the fire (pun intended), 3M, a manufacturer of firefighting foam is being sued because the suit claims, “the foam chemicals are persistent when released into the environment and harmful.”
So if the lawsuit turns out to be true, firefighters are using known contaminants to put out a fire and yet fire departments are immune from environmental liabilities in the course of putting out a fire.
What is your insured’s financial assurance strategy to address environmental liabilities after a fire?
Fill out the attached application and ERMI will negotiate for environmental insurance to fill in the coverage gap for your insureds you sell fire policies to.
https://whdh.com/news/city-suing-fighter-foam-makers-over-water-contamination/