This appeal involves the proper construction of a pollution exclusion clause in a commercial general liability “CGL” policy. A residential tenant sued her landlord for carbon monoxide poisoning allegedly caused by the landlord’s failure to keep the rental house in good repair. The landlord tendered the claim to his insurance carrier under his CGL policy. The carrier initially defended the suit but later filed a declaratory judgment action requesting a determination of non-liability. The trial court denied the carrier’s motion for summary judgment based on the pollution exclusion clause, and a seven-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the pollution exclusion clause in the landlord’s CGL policy unambiguously excluded the tenant’s claim from coverage.1 We granted certiorari to decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the pollution exclusion clause. We agree with the Court of Appeals’ judgment and analysis, and we therefore affirm. 1. Leslie Reed sued her landlord, Melvin Waldrop, for carbon monoxide poisoning allegedly caused by Waldrop’s failure to maintain the house she was renting from him in good repair.2 Waldrop tendered the claim to his insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Co. “Auto-Owners”, under his CGL policy. Auto-Owners assumed Waldrop’s defense under a reservation of rights.
On May 11, 2005, Auto-Owners filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Butts County Superior Court seeking a declaration of non-liability. Auto-Owners filed a motion for summary judgment based on the pollution exclusion clause of the policy, and the trial court denied the motion without explanation. Auto-Owners sought and obtained permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal.
