Last Friday, New Hampshire’s highest court unanimously held that the pungent aroma of cat urine could constitute physical loss or damage under a property policy. In Mellin v. Northern Security Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1869572, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 32 (N.H., Apr. 24, 2015), it split on whether such a loss was barred by standard pollution exclusion language, however. Three of the five justices (including a specially-appointed retiree) held that the exclusion was ambiguous in nature. The Chief Justice and another member of the court disagreed, labeling the provision “plain and unambiguous” and clearly applicable to preclude coverage for a pervasive cat odor problem.
On the TV show “Friends,” Phoebe Buffay used to entertain patrons at the Central Perk coffee shop with her song “Smelly Cat” (“Smelly cat, smelly cat, what are they feeding you, . . . “). The lyrics would have resonated with Doug and Gayle Mellin, the owners of a condominium in Epping, New Hampshire. After they moved in, the Mellins noticed a cat urine odor coming from a downstairs neighbor’s unit through an open plumbing chase in the kitchen wall. The stench was so severe that the town building inspector directed the couple to relocate temporarily and have the unit professionally remediated, but efforts to do that were unsuccessful. The policyholders vacated permanently after living there only three months.
The insureds made claim under their homeowner’s policy in December of 2010. The carrier denied, and they then brought suit. The trial court granted summary judgment to Northern Security, and an appeal followed. On April 24th, a divided state Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter. The contract of insurance “insure[d] against risk of direct loss to property . . . only if that loss is a physical loss to property,” and the threshold question was thus whether the odor was physical loss or damage. Speaking for all five members of the court, Justice Carol Conboy concluded that it could be. The court held “that physical loss may include not only tangible changes to the insured property, but also changes that are perceived by the sense of smell and that exist in the absence of structural damage” so long as those changes were “distinct and demonstrable.” In the words of the opinion, “[e]vidence that a change rendered the insured property temporarily or permanently unusable or uninhabitable may support a finding that the loss was a physical loss[.]” The justices therefore remanded the matter to the trial court for application of the legal standard that they had adopted. Read more ›
About The Author