Death is many things. It is tragic, mysterious, sometimes untimely, and always final. But one morbid question that has been discussed in the FC&S at least three times is whether a dead human body causing property damage is an excluded “pollutant” under a homeowners insurance policy.
This was the issue in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. The Estate of Randall Lee Taylor, a case involving one of the most uncomfortable property insurance claims imaginable. Taylor died inside his home. His body was not discovered for approximately ten days. During that time, decomposition caused damage to the insured property. His widow, Marcia Taylor, hired professionals to remediate the property and later submitted the claim to Florida Farm Bureau.
Farm Bureau denied the claim. It said the damage was excluded because the remains and bodily fluids were “pollutants.” To me, this suggests the claims decision raises the question: If a dead body is a pollutant, what is not?
The trial court got it right. 1 The judge refused to stretch a pollution exclusion beyond its ordinary meaning. The policy defined pollutants as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,” including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste. This is the language of environmental contamination, industrial discharge, and chemical exposure. It is not the language an ordinary homeowner would read and understand to mean the remains of a loved one who died inside the home.
Insurance policies are not supposed to be post-loss word games. Some insurance companies have a claims culture looking to not pay a claim and stretch word meanings as far as possible to promote a claims culture that is trying to reduce claims severity rather than looking for ways to pay the customer. The rules of policy interpretation require courts to read policy language as ordinary people would understand it. A homeowner buying coverage does not think, “If I die in my house and my body is not discovered for ten days, my remains will be considered pollution?” That is not the man-on-the-street interpretation. I suggest this current case is about a company claims management culture demanding the adjuster-in-the-claims-department-after-the-loss interpretation be the one that pays as little as possible.
Farm Bureau argued that bodily fluids and human remains could be considered contaminants or waste. The problem with that argument is that it proves too much. If “contaminant” means anything that can make property unsafe, unpleasant, or unusable, then almost anything can become a pollutant. Water can contaminate. Smoke can contaminate. Food can contaminate. Even air can contaminate if carried to its logical extreme. Courts should be very careful before allowing a pollution exclusion to become a universal escape hatch from coverage.
The trial court also noted a crucial evidentiary problem. Farm Bureau did not adequately identify the specific substances it claimed triggered the exclusion. It did not prove exactly what was removed, what condition the remains were in, what portions of the property were affected, or how each claimed item of damage fell within the pollution exclusion. In an all-risk homeowners policy, the policyholder must generally show physical loss during the policy period. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove an exclusion applies. Merely saying “biohazard” is not the same as proving “pollutant.”
The policyholder’s lawyers also made a strong argument about the endorsement providing additional coverage for “Fungi,” Wet or Dry Rot, or Bacteria. The unrebutted affidavit of a physician established that bacteria was present in Mr. Taylor’s body and in the fluids that left the body after death. The trial court found that this bacteria coverage provided another basis for coverage. Farm Bureau argued on appeal that the trial court went too far in relying on that endorsement, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment without a written opinion. 2
The appellate briefs tell a story beyond the facts of this one claim. Farm Bureau tried to turn a tragic death scene into a pollution case. The Estate responded by returning the court to the words of the policy, the reasonable understanding of an ordinary insured, and the insurer’s burden of proof. The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed by PCA. While a PCA does not create a written precedent, it leaves the trial court’s result standing. For practical purposes, Farm Bureau’s effort to expand the pollution exclusion to dead human bodies failed.
There is an important lesson for policyholders, public adjusters, and restoration contractors. Do not let an insurer’s label end the coverage analysis. “Biohazard,” “contamination,” “decomposition,” and “pollution” are not magic words. The question is always what the policy says, what the facts show, and whether the insurer can meet its burden to prove an exclusion.
There is also a drafting lesson for insurers. If an insurance company wants to exclude damage caused by human remains, decomposition, bodily fluids, or death-scene cleanup, it can write that exclusion in plain English. “We take your premiums while you are alive but will deny damage your dead body causes should you die within the policy period,” should be stated at the time of selling the policy. They have exclusions for mold, fungi, wear and tear, earth movement, water damage, vacancy, intentional acts, bacteria, lead, asbestos, and just about everything else under the sun. If the insurer means “human remains,” it should say “human remains.”
Insurers know how to draft those exclusions. Insurance companies also probably know and would expect nobody to purchase insurance from them if they put the above language into a policy. As a result, they try to hide reasons for coverage denial or limitation into other words or deep into the policy. They certainly do not sell insurance by advertising all the ways they avoid paying for damage.
This case should also remind us that property insurance claims often arise from human suffering. Behind every coverage dispute is a real person, a family, and a loss. This was not simply a dispute over cleaning invoices. It involved a widow who found her husband dead in their home and then had to fight with an insurance company over whether his remains were pollution. This is not just a legal issue, but a dignity issue.
A standard homeowners pollution exclusion should not be twisted to exclude damage caused by a dead human body unless the policy clearly and unmistakably says so. Courts should not write exclusions that insurers did not draft. The policyholder paid for coverage. The insurer should pay what it promised.
Thought For The Day
“I intend to live forever. So far, so good.”
—Steven Wright
1 The Estate of Randall Lee Taylor v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2020-CA-393 (Fla. Cir. – Charlotte July 12, 2021). See, Insurer Motion for Summary Judgment and Insured Response.
2 Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. The Estate of Randall Lee Taylor, No. 6D23-0230 (Fla. 6th DCA [PCA] July 25, 2023). See, Insurer Initial Brief and Insured Answer Brief.
