Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith, 298 Ga. 716

Tenant Amy Smith sued landlord Bobby Chupp alleging her daughter Tyasia Brown suffered permanent lead poisoning from ingesting deteriorating lead-based paint in a rental house insured by Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB).
Chupp tendered the claim to GFB; GFB filed a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify under the policy.
GFB argued (1) Smith knowingly exposed her child to chipping paint and (2) the policy’s absolute pollution exclusion precluded coverage because lead-based paint is a “pollutant.”
The CGL policy required coverage for bodily injury caused by an “occurrence” and excluded bodily injury “arising out of” discharge, dispersal, release, or escape of “pollutants,” defined to include any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant.
Trial court granted summary judgment to GFB, relying on Reed v. Auto-Owners (carbon monoxide held a pollutant); the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the pollution exclusion ambiguous as to lead-based paint.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether lead-based paint unambiguously falls within the policy’s definition of “pollutant.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injuries from lead-based paint ingestion are excluded by the policy’s pollution exclusion	Smith: pollution exclusion is ambiguous as to lead-based paint; should be strictly construed for insured	GFB: plain policy language defines pollutant broadly; lead in paint is an irritant/contaminant and thus excluded	Held: Exclusion unambiguous; lead in paint qualifies as a pollutant and excludes coverage
Whether Reed controls interpretation of absolute pollution exclusions in Georgia	Smith: Reed is distinguishable (carbon monoxide different from lead-based paint)	GFB: Reed’s textual approach governs; courts must apply plain policy language regardless of historical purpose	Held: Reed controls; courts must apply plain language without resort to extratextual history
Whether insurer must expressly name lead-based paint to exclude coverage	Smith: insurer should have explicitly excluded lead-based paint	GFB: insurer may draft exclusions broadly; need not list every substance	Held: Insurer need not name specific substances; the broad definition suffices to exclude lead

Reed v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 284 Ga. 286 (held carbon monoxide unambiguously a pollutant under an absolute pollution exclusion)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Staton, 286 Ga. 23 (policy language read as a layman would read it)
Payne v. Twiggs County Sch. Dist., 269 Ga. 361 (insurers may fix policy terms and exclude risks so long as lawful)
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crosby, 244 Ga. 456 (courts may not rewrite policy to extend coverage)
Truitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 231 Ga. App. 89 (policy need not explicitly list a substance for exclusion to apply)