Abstract
This article discusses the availability of insurance coverage for EMF‐based bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage claims in light of asbestos and environmental contamination cases. Many of the insurance industry's frequently asserted defenses in denying coverage in asbestos and environmental contamination cases are unavailable or inapplicable to potential liabilities based on injury or damage from EMFs. Perhaps of greatest significance, the insurance industry has expressly recognized that the pollution exclusion, which has eliminated coverage in many environmental and asbestos cases, is inapplicable to EMF claims. Accordingly, CGL insurance should cover defense and indemnification costs for most EMF‐based claims.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
