The insured sought cover against a claim by a third party alleging bodily injury from electromagnetic field radiation coming from transformers near the third party’s apartment.
The policy excluded coverage for claims for bodily injury arising from “radioactive matter or any form of radiation”.
The court said that the coverage exclusion of “any form of radiation” means “any form of radiation” including the electromagnetic field radiation alleged in the underlying lawsuit.
One of the insured’s arguments was that “any form of radiation” could not really mean any form of radiation because it would then include “sunburn, heat sickness, lightning strikes and microwave burns” with absurd results.
The court said they were not convinced those would be absurd result given the broad text of the exclusion. And whether future results might be absurd could be resolved in future cases because those hypothetical facts were not before the court and “We do not reach decisions based on hypothetical facts”.
It is unlikely that a South African court would be as generous in its interpretation.
Hammond Power Solutions Inc v National Union Fire insurance Company of Pittsburgh