Great American Insurance Co. is trying to weasel out of paying the heirs/families of three victims of a 2007 Houston office building fire by claiming they didn't die directly because of the fire. Rather, they're claiming that the people died because of "polluted air" (created by the fire) and the ONE million dollar policy on the building doesn't cover "death by pollution".

Or as the article in Chron.com puts it:

Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup — would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.

Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup — would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.

The lawyers for both the families and the building owners disagree with the interpretation put forth by the insurance co. But the best part is that, as Tom Baker ( who teaches at Penn Law School and an expert in insurance law ) says Texas might be just the state to give this type of rullling.

H/T The Consumerist and their snark article